Search Conversations

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

Annotations are minimal (only openWorldHint), so the limit parameter's note adds important context: each enumerated result selects a row in LinkedIn's UI and may mark it as read. This is a valuable behavioral disclosure beyond annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 low-complexity tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the combination of the terse description and the limit-parameter side-effect warning is sufficiently complete. It would benefit from explicit scoping (e.g., searches only the user's conversations) and sibling differentiation.

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 baseline applies. The tool description adds little beyond the schema: 'keywords' is self-explanatory, and the detailed limit behavior is already part of the input 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 states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('messages'), and the tool name clarifies the target is conversations. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search_people and search_posts by resource, but it doesn't explicitly mention that results are conversation references.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Search messages by keyword'—use when you need to find conversations by keyword rather than listing all via get_inbox. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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