search_people_sales_nav

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior: requires subscription, accepts various filters, supports pagination via 'limit' and 'cursor', and returns search results with profiles. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., missing subscription) or rate limits. It adds context beyond the schema but could be more explicit about behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with an introductory sentence, a list of arguments with brief explanations, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and requirement. Though it is somewhat lengthy due to many parameters, each sentence serves a purpose. Minor tightening could be done, but overall it is efficiently organized.

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?

Given 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It mentions the return (profiles with pagination cursor) but does not detail the profile fields. For a complex tool, it is mostly complete, but missing output schema details is a gap. Still, it adequately informs the agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all 15 parameters, including examples for complex ones like 'tenure' and 'company_headcount'. While most parameters are clarified, some (e.g., 'network_distance') lack detailed meaning of numeric values. Overall, it adds significant value over the schema titles.

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 searches for people using LinkedIn Sales Navigator with advanced filters, distinguishing it from sibling tool 'search_people' which uses standard LinkedIn search. The verb 'search' and resource 'people' are explicit, and the unique scope (Sales Nav) is highlighted.

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?

It specifies prerequisites (Sales Nav subscription), explains when to use this over alternatives (advanced filters not in Classic LinkedIn), and directs users to 'get_search_params()' to obtain valid filter IDs. This provides explicit guidance on when and how to use the tool, as well as when not to (if lacking subscription).

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