Search People

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not repeat those. The current_company parameter description adds significant behavioral transparency by disclosing that plain company names are ignored by LinkedIn and only numeric URNs work, which is valuable real-world behavior beyond 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 main description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. The parameter descriptions are detailed but clearly structured, front-loading the required keyword parameter first. Every element earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations that cover the safety profile. The description is minimal but sufficient when combined with schema descriptions, which explain key filtering behaviors. Some overview of result characteristics is missing, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 all parameters already have detailed descriptions. The main description adds no parameter semantics. The schema descriptions thoroughly explain network codes and the current_company URN requirement, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Search for people on LinkedIn' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_companies and search_jobs. The scope is explicit, making the tool's 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 main description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, but the current_company parameter description provides a concrete alternative: use get_company_employees for company-wide demographics and get_company_profile for URN lookup. This gives situational context, though overall usage guidance is limited to edge cases.

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