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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds critical behavior beyond that: found profiles are saved into contacts, deduplicated by profile URL, and leads are UNVERIFIED cached snippets. It also reveals the JSON return shape, including rejected_low_quality, giving the agent a realistic model of side effects and data trust.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage scenario, targeting trick, side-effect, return format, sibling comparison, data quality warning, and follow-up actions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words on redundant filler.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return JSON and key contact fields. It also covers side effects, data freshness, and downstream CRM steps, making it nearly self-sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool. The only minor gaps like pagination or error handling are not critical for a search tool.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description provides a meaningful semantic addition by explaining that 'put the name/company in `keywords`' lets the tool target a specific person. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Additional keywords' wording. Other parameters rely on the schema, which is acceptable at 100% coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Google X-Ray search for public LinkedIn profiles via Google operators (site:linkedin.com/in).' It clearly distinguishes itself from search_linkedin_people by naming the different return fields (contacts/profile_url vs results/linkedin_url), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly says when this is useful: 'when you don't want to consume LinkedIn search limits.' It also provides a concrete alternative for CRM follow-up: 'add_contacts_to_campaign ... or use a CRM tool like set_deal_stage.' The sibling comparison with search_linkedin_people adds clarity for choosing the right search tool.

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