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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: identical per-profile cost, per-item results, and the guarantee that it never stops on the first error.

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 action and limit, then detail semantics, then cost and error behavior. Dense but efficient; the detail descriptions are slightly redundant with the schema enum description but not wasteful.

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, so the description compensates by describing return granularity (per-item results) and failure semantics (never stops on the first error). Combined with the cost and detail-mode notes, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly alongside its siblings.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top of the schema by spelling out exactly what fields each detail mode returns and reiterating the equal cost per profile.

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 (fetch) and resource (LinkedIn profiles) with an explicit bulk scope (up to 10), which distinguishes it from the singular linkedin_get_profile sibling. It also names what it is not (company details) and routes that need to linkedin_get_company.

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 batching limit (up to 10), explains the detail-mode tradeoff, and explicitly redirects company lookups to linkedin_get_company. It does not state when to prefer this over calling linkedin_get_profile repeatedly, though the batching rationale is implied.

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