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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the reveal mechanism, inline polling, the ~10s bound, and that the answer is synchronous — material context an annotations-only view would miss. It omits the not-found/timeout fallback and that each reveal consumes Wiza credits, which is a notable gap for a credit-metered lookup.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the behavioral mechanic and a concrete example. The example is somewhat long but its value justifies the space.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not describe the return shape (phone number field, status when no number is found, whether partial match data comes back). The synchronous timing bound is covered, but the agent cannot anticipate what a successful vs. failed reveal looks like.

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% and both parameters are already documented, so the description only reinforces the profile_url shape through the example call. It adds no semantics for _apiKey beyond what the schema states.

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 a person's mobile phone number from their LinkedIn profile URL, via Wiza'), including the required input format. No sibling tool performs phone reveal, so it is unambiguous against the list.

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?

Implies usage via 'from their LinkedIn profile URL', which constrains input to a profile URL rather than a name/company search, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer preconditions (e.g., consent/credit policy).

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