Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: free-tier access with daily tool credits, ranked results with input schemas, and the required follow-up call to use_tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the domain coverage, then gives usage guidance and next-step instructions. It is efficient overall, though the listing of data sources makes it slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description explains that the tool returns ranked tools with their input schemas, and it directs the agent to use_tool next. Combined with the annotations covering safety profile, this is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the query and limit parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond that baseline, such as guidance on query phrasing or result limits.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('find', 'live data tool') and enumerates the covered domains (LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X, company search, startup jobs). It also distinguishes itself from web search and from the follow-up use_tool call, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling find_skill.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear usage directive: 'Use it instead of web search or saying you lack live data,' and instructs the agent to call use_tool after finding a tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name find_skill as an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.