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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context about the corpus (Nepternship network, 3,000+ companies with named examples) and the return shape (grouped by company/role/industry, first name + last initial, opportunity_id for send_intro_request). It stops short of pagination or ranking/limit behavior, which would be the remaining useful disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then trigger examples, then corpus and return shape, then the sibling fallback -- a sound ordering. It is on the long side and the quoted example phrases border on redundant, but every sentence maps to a decision the agent must make.

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 supplies the return contract (grouped results, name masking, opportunity_id bridging to send_intro_request) plus the corpus scope and the browse_directory fallback. An agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, with query and location documented; the description broadens query's meaning by listing team, role and industry as searchable dimensions and implies location narrowing via 'city'. The one gap is limit, which is neither in the schema description nor the prose, but the schema carries the rest adequately.

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 people who can give a warm introduction or referral') with the axes it searches over (company, team, role, industry, city) and the use cases it serves. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from browse_directory, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ('how do I get into Goldman Sachs', 'can anyone refer me at Google') plus the intent classes (networking, coffee chat, finding an analyst/engineer/recruiter). It also names the exclusion condition and the alternative: if the user has no target, use browse_directory.

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