search_people

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search capability and filter types but fails to describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a paginated search. The description is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive agent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates filter types in a parenthetical. There's zero waste or redundancy. Every word serves to clarify the tool's function.

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 search tool with 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (profiles? contact info?), how results are structured, pagination behavior beyond the schema's 'start' and 'count' parameters, or any limitations on search scope. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing filter categories ('keywords, company, industry, location, title, school, network depth') but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for people on LinkedIn with various filters'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('people on LinkedIn'), and scope ('with various filters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile' or 'sales_search_leads', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this search tool is preferred over 'get_profile' (for specific individuals) or 'sales_search_leads' (for sales-focused searches), nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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