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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses paging, normalized fields, null handling for private data, and pricing, which adds value. However, it omits details like response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a search tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids waste. It efficiently conveys the primary function, data scope, and pricing. It could be slightly more structured by separating concerns, but overall it is well-organized and concise.

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?

Given 13 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how parameters interact, paging behavior, or what the response structure looks like. The pricing and data-scope notes are helpful, but an agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and 13 parameters, the description must compensate by explaining parameter usage, but it does not. It mentions normalized fields like name/headline/company/location, but none of the specific parameters (geoId, followerOf, industryId, requestContext, etc.) are described. The description adds no meaning to any parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches professional profiles, specifies the data scope as bounded public-reference data, and mentions paging and normalized fields. It differentiates from siblings like people_search and people_enrich by highlighting the bounded public-reference nature and explicit nulls for private fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for searching public professional profiles and notes the data is bounded, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of pricing and field normalization gives context, but no direct comparison to similar sibling tools like people_search is offered.

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