Export a LinkedIn search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not mention that the run consumes credits (or that unused credits are refunded), that it may return a job id instead of results, or that it is a scraping operation subject to account/latency constraints — all of which are only hinted at in the parameter schema.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the action, the second handles disambiguation. Routing information is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 5-parameter extraction tool with no output schema, the routing guidance is complete and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only gap is that the description never signals the async/credit-consuming nature of the run, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it now.

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%, so the schema already explains url, max, account, with_emails, and wait_seconds, including the credit-hold and job-id behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Extract the people from a regular LinkedIn people-search URL'), and immediately scopes it against the Sales Navigator variant. An agent can distinguish it from scrupp_export_sales_navigator_search without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the URL pattern this tool handles (linkedin.com/search/results/people) and the pattern that should route elsewhere (linkedin.com/sales, Sales Navigator tool). Both the when and the when-not are stated in one sentence, leaving nothing to inference.

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