Get Team Connections

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains what 'connection_sources' mean (EMAIL, LINKEDIN, CALENDAR with definitions), specifies the return format with a detailed example, and clarifies the tool's purpose for 'warm introductions in VC deal flow.' While it doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, it provides meaningful behavioral context that annotations don't cover.

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 well-structured with clear sections (What it does, Returns, Connection sources, Use case), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently communicates key information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand.

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 (4 parameters, 100% schema coverage), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, return format with examples, connection source meanings, and practical application. This compensates well for the lack of output schema and gives the agent sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain company_id format or pagination behavior). However, it implies the tool uses company_id to find connections, which aligns with schema documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Find which team members have connections to a company' and 'Returns your team's network connections to people at the target company, showing who knows whom and how they're connected.' This is a specific verb ('find'/'returns') + resource ('team members' connections to a company'), and it clearly distinguishes from siblings like harmonic_get_company (general company info) or harmonic_get_company_employees (employee list without connections).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Before reaching out to a company, find if anyone on your team has a warm intro path.' It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on connections rather than general company data or employee lists. The 'Use case' section clearly defines the context for tool selection.

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