run_linkedin_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It honestly notes that email is returned only 'when available', which is a useful caveat, but it does not address failure modes, rate limits, or whether other contact details are always present. This is minimal but nonzero transparency.

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 states the action, input, and output without any redundant or filler wording.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description gives the essential invocation context and a key caveat about email availability. It does not detail the exact response structure or error handling, but the tool's simplicity makes the description reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already provides a thorough description of the 'username' parameter (full URL with example), giving 100% coverage. The description only reaffirms that the tool uses a full profile URL, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('looks up') and resource ('LinkedIn profile'), with a clear outcome ('returns contact details, including an email address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying the input must be a full profile URL, making its scope unique.

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 clearly states the input condition ('by its full profile URL'), which implies when to use this tool versus people or company search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion guidance, so it stops short of full comparative instructions.

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