Search Sales Navigator Accounts

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says results are 'saved to the local database automatically' and the refresh parameter 'forget[s] this query's saved progress and records and re-scrape[s].' These are state-modifying behaviors that directly contradict the read-only annotation. While the description transparently discusses caching and resume behavior, this is an annotation contradiction.

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 in three tight paragraphs: behavior and output, URL input workflow, and resume semantics. It is front-loaded with the most important operational facts and every sentence carries useful information, with no filler 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?

Given the output schema and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to add workflow and behavioral context, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the summary return, database persistence, valid URL inputs, resume behavior, and refresh semantics. Nothing needed to call or understand the tool is missing aside from the annotation conflict.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning for search_url by explaining how to build the search and copy the URL, and it notes that saved account lists are accepted. This goes beyond the schema's path list and gives the agent actionable guidance for constructing a valid parameter value.

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 first sentence clearly identifies the operation and resource: searching Sales Navigator companies/accounts and capturing API responses. It also clarifies the output contract (summary only, not records), which distinguishes it from export_results/get_results. The account scope differentiates it from the sibling search_contacts.

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 gives a concrete workflow: build the Sales Navigator search, copy the URL, and pass it in, with saved account lists also supported. It explicitly directs users to export_results or get_results for the actual records. It does not explicitly contrast with search_contacts or mention when not to use this tool, but the account-scoped intent is clear.

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