sales_search_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Sales Navigator subscription requirement, which is useful context, but lacks details about rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), error handling, or what the search results look like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential context (Sales Navigator requirement). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (search with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and subscription requirement but lacks details about behavioral traits, result format, or explicit sibling differentiation. It meets the bare minimum for a search tool but leaves room for improvement.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain keyword syntax, geography/industry format options, or pagination defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search for accounts (companies)') and specifies the resource ('using LinkedIn Sales Navigator'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'search_companies' by mentioning the Sales Navigator requirement, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'sales_search_leads' which is a similar sibling tool.

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 provides some usage context by stating 'requires Sales Navigator subscription', which is helpful for prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_companies' or 'sales_search_leads', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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