search_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that data is returned in 'cleaned data in TOON format', which adds some context about output formatting. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how pagination works (implied by the 'page' parameter). For a search tool with 13 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality (searching LinkedIn profiles) and includes key details (filtering criteria and output format). There is no wasted language, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values beyond 'cleaned data in TOON format', leaving the agent uncertain about the structure or content of results. For a search tool with many filtering options and no structured output, more context on behavior and results is needed.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing 'name, company, location' as search criteria, which corresponds to some parameters (e.g., 'search', 'currentCompany', 'location'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches LinkedIn profiles by name, company, and location, and returns cleaned data in TOON format. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('LinkedIn profiles'), and scope (filtering criteria). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile' or 'search_companies', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'get_profile' (which might retrieve a single profile) or 'search_companies' (which searches companies instead of profiles). It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't clarify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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