linkfetch_search_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key operational traits: cache-first lookup, live execution on the user's account in Cloud mode, safety limits, and specific error codes (linkedin_not_connected, extension_required). This is valuable operational context beyond a bare 'search' statement. It doesn't cover rate-limit specifics or result-freshness guarantees, but for a read/search tool this is solid transparency.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the purpose and adds operational context via a semicolon. Every clause earns its place without 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?

Covers purpose, caching behavior, authentication precondition, and failure modes, which is complete enough for an agent to call correctly. It stops short of describing pagination semantics or result-shape expectations, but the absence of an output schema and the concise error-code disclosure leave it well-aligned with the tool's scope.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description explains that 'q' maps to keywords, but adds no syntax, query-language, or pagination interplay details beyond what the schema provides for limit and offset.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (LinkedIn groups) with the target domain clearly identified. The analogy to 'the LinkedIn search bar' makes the retrieval semantics immediately intelligible. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_people, search_companies, and search_posts by the explicit 'groups' resource.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance on cache-first behavior and live fetch fallback, which tells the agent when a result is fresh vs. cached. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search_posts over groups), leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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