linkedin_get_hiring_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool uses 'title patterns' to find contacts, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose possible limitations like pagination or empty results. There is no contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Find recruiters and hiring contacts at a company'), and immediately followed by a practical application. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and well-documented parameters, the description covers purpose, method, and use cases. It could be more complete by differentiating from similar siblings or describing what the result list looks like, but overall it provides sufficient context for a simple tool.

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%: both 'company' and 'limit' have descriptions. The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline 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 description opens with a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the resource ('recruiters and hiring contacts at a company'), then explains the identification method via 'title patterns.' It is clear, but it does not distinguish the tool from similar siblings like linkedin_find_recruiters or linkedin_get_company_employees.

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 states a practical use case ('address a cover letter... or send targeted outreach'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools for finding people, such as linkedin_search_people or linkedin_find_recruiters.

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