socials_linkedin_get_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (array of people with fields and pagination info) but doesn't explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, requires prior search setup, or what happens if no search page is active. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence provides essential information about the return value and pagination. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and pagination details, giving a complete picture of the output. For a simple read tool with one optional parameter, this is sufficient, though failure conditions and prerequisites are not covered.

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?

The single parameter 'count' is fully described in the schema with its maximum limit and default value, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'people results from current LinkedIn people search page'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like socials_linkedin_people_search (which initiates a search) and socials_linkedin_next_page (which navigates).

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?

Phrase 'current LinkedIn people search page' implies a prerequisite of an active search, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are evident and the context is sufficient.

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