run_linkedin_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it 'finds' a profile, without mentioning output format, potential limitations (e.g., profile may not exist), whether it performs a live search, or if any external rate limits apply. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Finds') and the key inputs. Every word earns its place, with no redundant padding.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must also convey what the agent can expect in return. It does not mention the return format (e.g., profile URL, profile details, or null). For a two-parameter lookup, this is a clear but incomplete description; the agent might not know how to use the result.

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% because both parameters (full_name and company_or_domain) have inline descriptions. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to find a LinkedIn profile using a company name or domain plus a full name. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_linkedin_people_search (which likely searches by name only) and run_linkedin_company_search.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have both a company/domain and a full name. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, unlike the high-scoring TDQS example. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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