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

The read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior is already fully declared by the annotations, so "Read-only: returns public data and changes nothing" is largely redundant. The credit pricing (1 credit per result, minimum 1 per request) is genuinely new and useful behavioral context not present in the annotations. However, nothing is said about pagination behavior, result caps beyond the schema, or rate limiting.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the read-only guarantee is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the middle sentence duplicates the annotations rather than spending those words on scope.

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 tool named "search_all" with no output schema, the description must explain what entity types come back, and it does not. The agent is left guessing whether results are profiles, companies, posts or a heterogeneous mix. The pricing note is helpful, but the core scope gap makes the definition incomplete for a 3-parameter cross-entity search.

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%, so the schema already documents keyword, count (1–10, default 10) and start (skip offset). The description adds no meaning beyond that – no guidance on keyword syntax, boolean operators, or how start interacts with the count cap of 10. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

"Global LinkedIn search" names a verb and platform but never states what is being searched or returned. With siblings like linkedin_search_companies, linkedin_search_jobs, linkedin_search_posts and linkedin_search_schools, the agent cannot tell whether this returns people, posts, or a mix of everything. The scope word "global" hints at breadth but does not resolve the ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over the many entity-specific LinkedIn search tools, or what query shape suits it. Usage is only implied by the word "search".

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