run_linkedin_domain

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about authentication requirements, what a matched profile contains, behavior when no profile is found, or rate limits — all material for a lookup tool in a crowded sibling set.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No padding or redundancy.

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 is low-complexity (2 params), but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say what 'finds' returns (profile URL, headline, etc.). As written, an agent knows the inputs but not the result shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that company_or_domain accepts either a company name or a domain, which adds real meaning, but full_name is left to the schema's obvious naming and no format examples are given.

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?

Specific verb (Finds) plus resource (LinkedIn profile) and the two lookup keys. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from closely-named siblings like run_linkedin_people_search or run_linkedin_company_employee, which an agent could easily pick instead.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given multiple LinkedIn siblings (company_search, people_search, email, company_employee), the agent gets no signal about which situation this tool is for.

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