search_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds genuine value beyond that with the result ordering and the caveat that email addresses are only returned for connections who permit exporting — a data-availability trait an agent cannot learn from the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by the one non-obvious caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and read-only annotations, most of the burden is lifted. The description covers scope, ordering, and the email-permission caveat; a note on pagination expectations or an explicit 'use X instead for profiles' pointer would complete it.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter detail beyond what is in the schema (limit, query, company, connected_since are all self-documented). Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (search) and resource (the user's first-degree LinkedIn connections), plus the ordering ('most recent first') and a scope qualifier (first-degree only). No sibling tool touches connections, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the 'first-degree connections' scope, but the description never says when to reach for this versus alternatives like get_profile or search_messages, nor any prerequisites. An agent must infer that it should use this only when looking for a connection list.

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