Lookup Person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies this is a 'READ operation (does not create data)', explains the HTTP 404 behavior (may trigger background enrichment with retry advice), and details the enrichment process and return data structure, enhancing the agent's understanding.

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, Input, Returns, HTTP 404 Note, Use cases), making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the detailed JSON example in 'Returns' could be slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, such as the enrichment and retry advice.

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 complexity (enrichment with potential background processes), rich annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits (like 404 handling), parameter details, and example output, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing an output schema.

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 both parameters (linkedin_url and response_format) well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides an example URL format for linkedin_url and lists return fields, but does not explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's comprehensive coverage.

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 specific action ('Look up a person by their LinkedIn URL') and resource ('person's profile'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like harmonic_get_person or harmonic_search_typeahead. It explicitly mentions enrichment and the type of data returned (work history, education, contact info, social links), providing a comprehensive understanding of its function.

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 includes a 'Use cases' section with specific scenarios (research before meetings, contact info for outreach, verifying roles), which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., harmonic_get_person for non-LinkedIn-based lookups), missing full sibling differentiation.

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