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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits (cookie-free operation, optional profile/email enrichment), but omits cost/credit behavior, auth requirements, pagination, and what the response contains. Some value added, but significant gaps remain for a 13-parameter tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core search and followed by mode-specific extensions. Every sentence carries information, though the second and third could be slightly tighter.

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 with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and mode-specific parameters but leaves return format, cost model, and mode-to-parameter applicability incompletely specified. Adequate but not complete.

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 77%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description reinforces which parameters matter (job_title, location, keywords, people_at_companies, full_profiles, emails) but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Searches") and resource ("LinkedIn people ... or companies") with the dimensions each mode accepts (job title, location, keywords / what they do, location). It also names the "without cookies" differentiator. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like find_people_at_companies or scrape_linkedin_urls, which an agent must route between.

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 through the two search modes and the note that companies can be combined with people_at_companies + job_title, which helps an agent pick parameter combos. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against the many LinkedIn/lead siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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