linkedin_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the scope of universal search and the 'broad sweep' characterization, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, result ordering, or how the universal search aggregates results. With annotations carrying the safety context, 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides clear usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler, 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description, combined with rich annotations and a well-described schema, fully covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. The explicit guidance on when to use this vs. dedicated tools completes the context needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 83% (only sortBy lacks a description). The description mentions the vertical parameter by listing supported verticals and references location resolution implicitly, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'search' with a clear resource ('LinkedIn') and explicitly scopes it as 'universal' across any vertical, enumerating people, jobs, companies, posts, events, groups, schools. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming linkedin_search_jobs, linkedin_search_people, and linkedin_search_companies and clarifying when to use this tool instead.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use dedicated tools when vertical-specific filters are needed, and use this tool for posts, events, groups, schools, or a broad sweep. This names alternatives and clearly states the conditions for choosing this tool.

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