linkedin_message_recruiters

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Paces sends and stops on quota or session failures.' It also warns that this 'contacts real people on the user's behalf,' which appropriately raises the stakes for an agent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second covers pacing and failure handling, and the third delivers the critical human-impact warning. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

Given the tool's complexity and real-world messaging impact, the description covers the key operational behaviors (pacing, quota stops, personalization, and safety confirmation). It does not describe output/return behavior, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical here.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces how the message parameter works ('personalising from the user's profile unless a fixed message is supplied'), but that detail is already present in the schema. No additional parameter-specific meaning is added.

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 states a specific compound action: 'Find recruiters hiring for a role and message each one,' which clearly differentiates it from siblings like linkedin_find_recruiters (find only) and linkedin_send_message (message only). It also specifies the personalization behavior, making the purpose 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 implies its use case (finding and messaging recruiters) and provides a strong safety guideline to confirm recipients before invoking. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as linkedin_find_recruiters or linkedin_send_message.

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