socials_linkedin_people_search

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 an important behavioral trait: the search itself does not return results, requiring a subsequent call to socials_linkedin_get_people. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some gaps in 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?

The description is three short sentences, each adding needed information: the purpose, the filters, and the follow-up tool. No filler words and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool has a simple two-step workflow, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what filters are available, and how to proceed to get results. It does not explain edge cases like making a query optional, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.

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 schema covers all three parameters (query, network, actively_hiring) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing the filters and their types (1st/2nd/3rd connections), but it essentially repeats the schema rather than providing deeper semantics or examples.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search for people on LinkedIn') and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool socials_linkedin_get_people by explaining that this tool performs the search while the sibling retrieves results. It also mentions the filter options, further clarifying its scope.

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 clear workflow context: it explicitly says to use socials_linkedin_get_people to get results after search, which tells the agent how to sequence these tools. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to socials_linkedin_posts_search, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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