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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and partial-results profile. The description adds that the tool returns a list and that paginated results should use a cursor, which is useful. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or how open-world partial results should be interpreted.

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 two sentences with no filler and front-loads the core behavior. It is concise and readable. The cost is that 'filters' is underspecified for a tool with 23 parameters, but the wording is still 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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), this description is too thin. It omits the return shape beyond 'list,' the pagination model (cursor vs count/start/offset), filter combination semantics, and the meaning of the required context/llm_model parameters. An agent would need external knowledge to call this tool correctly in many realistic scenarios.

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 low at 39%, so the description needs to compensate by naming or explaining key parameters. It only says 'by keyword and filters' and does not enumerate or clarify the many filter fields such as currentCompany, geoEntityId, industry, or profileLanguage. It also gives no guidance on the relationship between count, start, offset, and cursor, despite pagination being central to the tool.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Search LinkedIn people by keyword and filters.' This is clear and matches the title. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but there is no direct sibling for people search in the provided list, so the confusion risk is low. The 'v2' live-data nuance is left to the tool name rather than the description.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like linkedin_live_organizations_search_v2 or linkedin_posts_search_list. It only notes cursor behavior for pagination, which is relevant to invocation but not to tool selection. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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