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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the search uses the URL's filters and makes results available to the agent, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits or authentication specifics, but those are not required given the annotation coverage. The description adds some value beyond the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage condition follows immediately. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's role and trigger.

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 read-only tool with a simple input (URL and product type), the description adequately covers the core use case: it states what it does and when to use it, and the phrase 'same filters/results available to the agent' implies the output. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to elaborate return formats. The account_id parameter is explained in the schema, so the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 only 33% (only account_id has a description). The description mentions the URL types but does not explicitly explain the 'url' or 'product' parameters. It implies that the product parameter corresponds to the URL type, but it never states that connection. The account_id parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, though it is well-documented in the schema. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so beyond indirect hints.

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 opens with 'Run a native LinkedIn search from a LinkedIn search URL' – a specific verb (run) and resource (search URL), and it immediately differentiates itself from sibling search tools (e.g., linkedin_search_people) by grounding the action in a URL. It enumerates the three URL types (classic, Sales Navigator, Recruiter), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 second sentence explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use when the user pastes a linkedin.com/search/results/... URL, Sales Navigator search URL or Recruiter search URL and wants the same filters/results available to the agent.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives for the when-not case, but the implicit contrast with other search tools is sufficient for an agent to infer.

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