Enrich LinkedIn profiles

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. But the description omits the operationally important traits: this consumes credits (the schema notes emails are billed), and wait_seconds implies an asynchronous job that may return a job id rather than results — neither is mentioned in the description.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the returned data. Nothing is wasted, but it is sparse enough that it reads more like a field list than a definition.

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 credit-consuming, open-world, potentially asynchronous enrichment call with no output schema, the description should say something about cost, job/id return behavior, and result shape. Instead it only lists four output fields, leaving the agent without the context needed to call it responsibly.

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%, with clear per-parameter docs for with_emails (billing), profile_urls, and wait_seconds (async fallback). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (LinkedIn profiles, keyed by profile URLs) and enumerates the returned fields (current title, company, location, experience), so an agent knows what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as scrupp_find_decision_makers or scrupp_lookup_company, which also return people/company data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the nine siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the profile-enrichment path rather than the email-finding or search-export path.

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