linkedin_search_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the search criteria context but does not disclose additional behavior such as result ordering, pagination, or whether it searches only current conversations or archived ones. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the core function. Every word earns its place with zero filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple search tool with two well-documented parameters and strong safety annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. However, since there is no output schema, it does not mention the return format (e.g., list of conversation IDs vs full messages), which would be useful but not critical given the straightforward nature of the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have rich descriptions ('query' matches message content and participant names; 'limit' defaults to 20). The description merely restates the search criteria already present in the schema, adding no new semantic detail.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('message inbox') and search criteria ('by keyword or participant name'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_get_conversations (list) and linkedin_get_conversation_history (view messages in a specific conversation).

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 usage context (searching messages when you need to filter by keyword/participant), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like linkedin_get_conversations or linkedin_export_conversations, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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