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

The description goes beyond annotations by revealing that results are raw, unsaved, and require a separate upsert call to persist. It also warns about the two location inputs. It does not discuss rate limits or what 'raw' means in terms of returned fields, which would add further transparency.

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 focused sentences with no filler: purpose first, persistence behavior and successor tool second, and the key location parameter nuance last. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs before calling.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core use case, the persistence boundary, the follow-up tool, and the ambiguous location parameter. The main gap is return-shape clarity (what fields each raw result contains), though the upsert reference implies profile URLs are available.

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% and already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by stating to pass either a human-readable location or a raw locationId, and it gives concrete examples matching the schema. It adds no extra semantics for limit or network, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search people on LinkedIn by title and location.' It also distinguishes itself from downstream persistence by noting it 'does not save them as Salesbot contacts,' and the tool name plus sibling context make clear it is the LinkedIn people search, not navigator or web search.

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?

It explicitly routes follow-up behavior: for profiles to keep or add to a campaign, call upsert_linkedin_contact with the profile URL. It also clarifies the location/locationId either-or. It does not explicitly call out when another search sibling (e.g., search_linkedin_navigator) should be preferred, so it stops short of exhaustive alternative guidance.

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