linkedin_search_people

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the approval prerequisite, which is a meaningful constraint, but does not disclose what happens without approval, whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any pagination/rate-limit behavior. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated separately. It is efficient and easy to scan, though it omits possibly important details that are not covered elsewhere, making it slightly under-specified rather than overly verbose.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, any error conditions, and the implications of the approval requirement. It only covers the approval prerequisite, leaving the agent without enough information about expected output or failure modes. The simplicity of the tool (4 optional params) lowers the bar, but the missing behavioral details make it incomplete.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description's listing of 'keywords / location / company / industry' merely echoes the schema without adding new meaning, such as format expectations, wildcard support, or interaction between filters. It meets the baseline for 100% coverage but does not go beyond it.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'member profiles', and lists the search dimensions (keywords, location, company, industry) which map to the parameters. It differentiates from sibling tools like linkedin_search_jobs by explicitly targeting member profiles, though it does not name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states a prerequisite ('Requires an approved search product/scope') but does not explain when to choose this over linkedin_get_profile or linkedin_search_jobs. There is no mention of exclusions or contextual triggers.

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