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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'searches' people, implying a read operation, but gives no detail on pagination, output format, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It also fails to mention that this may be a live scraping operation, despite the scraperMode parameter.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and names the key filter groups. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It does not describe the return value, the effect of scraperMode, the meaning of startPage/maxResults, or any pagination behavior. An agent would have to rely on the sparse schema descriptions and would likely misuse the tool. The description is far too high-level for such a parameter-heavy 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?

Schema coverage is only 24%, so the description must compensate. It lists filter categories (company, title, seniority, location, experience, industry) which map to some parameters like currentCompany, currentJobTitleFilter, seniorityLevelFilter, locations, yearsOfExperienceFilter, and industryIds. However, it does not explain the meaning of many array parameters (e.g., firstNames, lastNames, functionFilter) or clarify how to combine them. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 clearly states the tool searches LinkedIn people with an optional free-text query and a set of advanced filters. It names the resource (LinkedIn people) and the action (searches), and the mention of 'people' distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_linkedin_company_search. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention run_linkedin_company_search, run_linkedin_company_employee, or other search tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that it is for people search, which is minimal.

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