Find Linkedin profile from Name and Company

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description reveals that the 'confidence' field is hidden from the response and should never be requested. It also discloses credit cost and advises on handling low-confidence matches. This adds significant behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, but there is some redundancy (title repeated in first line) and the 'Args' section duplicates schema. Overall, each sentence contributes to understanding, but minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage order, hidden field, cost, and chaining. It could be improved by clarifying the exact output structure beyond 'profile URL', but the guidance is sufficient for effective use.

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%, so the description's repetition of parameter descriptions adds minimal value. The descriptions are identical ('Fullname column', 'Company column') and offer no additional constraints or examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool clearly states it finds LinkedIn profile URLs from name and company, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'derrick_enrich_profile' by noting it should be used before enrichment. The title and first sentence are consistent and precise.

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 explicitly says 'use this BEFORE enrich_profile' and provides chaining instructions with credit cost. It covers when to use (when only have name) and how to handle low-confidence matches. However, it does not explicitly list situations where this tool should be avoided, missing explicit exclusions.

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