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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the exact return fields, that text filter values are auto-resolved to LinkedIn IDs, and that total_count can be null when LinkedIn doesn't report it. Auth/rate-limit constraints are absent, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and input modes, followed by return shape and pagination. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields (name, headline, location, profile URL, network distance), explaining total_count's nullable semantics, and covering pagination. An agent has everything needed to call and consume the result 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that text filter values (location, industry) are resolved to LinkedIn IDs automatically and by clarifying total_count/cursor semantics for pagination.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Search LinkedIn for people") and immediately names the two input modes (keywords/filters vs. a pasted search URL). This distinguishes it from sibling searches such as linkedin_search_jobs and linkedin_search_sales_navigator, which target different resource types.

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?

Explains the two invocation paths and notes that url is mutually exclusive with keywords/filters, plus tells the agent to use cursor for more results. It stops short of saying when to prefer this people search over linkedin_search_sales_navigator or linkedin_get_connections, so it's clear context without explicit alternatives.

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