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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that public search hides many results as 'LinkedIn Member', page sizes (10 vs 25), latency (~3s / ~5s / sometimes 25s), credit cost (7 / 170) with refunds on failure, and caching behavior. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before spending credits.

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?

Front-loads what the tool finds, then layers source, paging, latency, requirements and cost. Every clause is substantive, though the density of parenthetical asides ('and now and then up to 25') makes it slightly run-on rather than crisp.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers result source, page size, cursor continuation and cost — most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the shape of returned fields (name, title, company, URL) or how 'LinkedIn Member' placeholders appear in results, which is the remaining gap for a paginated search tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it states that at least one of query/first_name/last_name/title/current_company/past_company/school/location must be given (required is empty in the schema) and explains the default source's tradeoffs. It does not clarify cursor pagination semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: 'Find people by name, title, company, school or place.' That cleanly separates it from sibling searchers like search_linkedin_companies, search_linkedin_jobs and search_linkedin_services, which target different resources.

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?

Gives clear routing context: when to pick source=public vs source=sales_navigator (coverage vs cost), the constraint that at least one filter must be supplied, and points to the profile-retrieval tool for full details. No explicit when-not/exclusion guidance, e.g. 'if you already have a profile URL, use get_linkedin_profile instead', which keeps it off a 5.

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