search_people

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses basic return fields but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The disclosure is adequate for a simple search but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and every word is informative. No filler or redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the return values and suggests the next step. However, it omits details on result ordering, error cases, and pagination, leaving minor gaps for a complex 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?

Schema coverage is 100% as both parameters have descriptions. The description adds a concrete example for keywords ('e.g. "recruiter at Google"') and restates the default for count, providing slight additional value over the schema alone.

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 it searches LinkedIn people by keywords and specifies the returned fields (name, headline, location, public identifier). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies and search_jobs by naming the target resource (people).

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (searching people by keywords) and suggests a follow-up action: passing the public identifier to get_profile for full details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for specific lookups.

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