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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: that company_domain yields "significantly more reliable results" than company_name, which informs accuracy expectations. No auth or rate-limit detail, but the added reliability hint earns above-baseline credit.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler; the prerequisite and accuracy guidance follow logically. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (work email) and the inputs needed. It is essentially complete, though it could note behavior when no email is found, a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including that company_domain is "Recommended for best accuracy." The description's domain-vs-name reliability note largely echoes the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding new syntax or format detail.

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 ("Find") and resource ("a person's work email address") with the required inputs (name and company), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like validate_email and find_mobile. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: if name/company is missing, use linkedin_get_profile first, and it recommends company_domain over company_name for reliability. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., vs validate_email), but the prerequisite and preference guidance is clear.

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