linkedin_find_recruiters

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idiempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that matches include a recruiterScore and the signals behind it, and that recruiters are inferred from headline patterns. This gives the agent insight into the tool's operational quirks.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main function, explaining the score output, and clarifying the inference approach. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 gives the core return concept (recruiterScore and signals) but does not outline the full response structure or pagination. Given the tool's moderate complexity and good annotation coverage, this is largely sufficient, though a bit more detail about the result listing could make it complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description does add the concept of recruiterScore and its range, but this is already partially echoed in the minScore parameter description. It adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Finds recruiters relevant to a role or company' and reinforces its unique value with the recruiterScore explanation. It also distinguishes itself from generic search tools by noting LinkedIn has no 'recruiter' entity type and that inference is based on headline patterns, which separates it from siblings like linkedin_search_people.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (when you need recruiters for a role/company) and explains its inference method, implying it is the appropriate choice over generic search. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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