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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that result reliability depends on which company identifier is supplied, but says nothing about behavior when no match is found or about lookup limits.

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: purpose first, prerequisite second, accuracy tip third. Each sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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 full parameter documentation and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has nearly everything needed. The only omission is failure behavior — what comes back when no email is found — which matters for a best-effort lookup like this.

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 baseline would be 3. The description still adds value by ranking company_domain above company_name and explaining that domain drives reliability, which the schema only hints at with 'Recommended for best accuracy.'

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 work email address from name and company. This clearly separates it from the sibling find_mobile (phone numbers) and from validate_email (verifying an existing address).

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 concrete prerequisite (use linkedin_get_profile first when name/company are missing) and advises preferring company_domain for accuracy. It does not explain when to prefer validate_email over this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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