run_linkedin_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It offers one useful hint ('email when available', signaling non-deterministic coverage), but says nothing about failure behavior on a missing/private profile, auth requirements, or the shape of returned contact details.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb leading and no padding. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup, though it could have spent that brevity budget on routing guidance instead.

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 trivial one-param lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, covering what is fetched. It is missing the failure/empty-result behavior and any sibling routing that would make it fully self-contained.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents that the value must be a full LinkedIn profile URL. The description adds no format or interpretation guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('looks up'), resource ('LinkedIn profile'), and outcome ('returns contact details, including email'). This is a clear purpose, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like run_linkedin_people_search or run_email_finder that could plausibly return email too.

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, despite siblings such as run_email_finder, run_email_enrichment, and run_linkedin_people_search that overlap in outcome. The agent must guess whether this is the right email-retrieval tool.

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