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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches with the user's own LinkedIn account, it returns results that may need to be resolved to IDs, and it warns against passing profile URLs to actions requiring user_id. It doesn't describe pagination or result format, but the annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds meaningful operational context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs a lot of useful guidance into three sentences without redundancy. The only minor issue is that the account_id guidance is embedded in the schema rather than the description, but the description itself is well-structured and 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 no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: what it searches, how to use results, and how to handle ID-based filters. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but given the annotations and the clear downstream guidance, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke 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 43%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that some filters require IDs and must be resolved first with linkedin_get_search_parameters, and it explicitly mentions location and current_company as ID-based filters. It also explains the account_id parameter's behavior (optional when one account, must be resolved when multiple). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though not every parameter is individually explained.

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 Classic people using the user's own account, and lists the search criteria (name, title, employer, location, industry, keywords, network distance). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying 'LinkedIn Classic' and by explaining the downstream use case (finding a person/provider user ID for message/invitation actions).

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: to find a person/provider user ID from various criteria. It also gives clear guidance on what to do next (pass the chosen result's id to the action tool, never pass a profile URL directly) and when to use a prerequisite (resolve filters with linkedin_get_search_parameters). This is strong routing guidance.

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