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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds cost ('Reading these costs nothing'), the presence of per-email verification status and date, and the fact that your LinkedIn connections are surfaced in the result. It does not mention rate limits, result caps, or pagination.

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 and returns, then supporting details, then the alternative path. Five short sentences with almost no filler; the cost sentence is brief but earns its place for agent decision-making.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well: it names the fields, the email verification metadata, and the connection signal. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description restates the company id/slug source but adds nothing about with_email_only or the accepted id-vs-slug forms beyond what the schema says.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Get the people Fundz already holds for one company') with the returned fields enumerated (name, role, department, email). It clearly distinguishes itself from reveal_contacts, which is framed as the enrichment path for missing emails rather than a duplicate of this read.

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 to reveal_contacts when a contact lacks an email, and notes that reading is free, which is decision-relevant. It also tells the agent where the company id/slug comes from (search_funding_rounds and other feeds). No guidance, however, on when to prefer this over adjacent siblings like get_company_profile or who_do_i_know.

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