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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds the requirement of a Recruiter-capable account and the need to resolve filter IDs, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or result format, which are not covered by annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives use cases and a practical dependency. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

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 search tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is reasonably complete. It states the use case, account requirement, and how to obtain filter IDs. It does not explicitly describe the return format (likely a list of candidates) or pagination, but with no output schema and a single param, these are minor gaps. The dependency on get_search_parameters is a critical piece that is covered.

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 100% because the only parameter (account_id) is fully described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter meaning; it only mentions filter ID resolution, which implies there are other parameters not represented in the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, baseline 3 applies, and the description adds marginal value.

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 action (search) and the resource (LinkedIn Recruiter candidates) using the user's Recruiter-capable account. It explicitly differentiates from sibling search tools by mentioning Recruiter-specific filters and the product context, making it distinct from linkedin_search_people or linkedin_sales_navigator_search_people.

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 provides clear usage context: candidate sourcing, recruiting projects/talent pools, and Recruiter-specific filters. It also gives a concrete prerequisite instruction (resolve filter IDs with linkedin_get_search_parameters(product='recruiter')). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, though the context strongly implies it is for Recruiter-specific searches only.

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