linkedin_search_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention pagination (though 'page' exists in the schema), result limits, or any licensing prerequisites. It adds some context by referencing Sales Navigator but lacks deeper detail about what happens when the tool runs.

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 action and resource. No wasted words; it accomplishes its purpose without fluff. The parenthetical list of filters is concise and immediately informative.

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 tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It establishes the core purpose and mentions Sales Navigator, but it does not clarify pagination behavior, response format, or any constraints on combining filters. The schema compensates for parameter details, but the description alone feels slightly incomplete for an agent encountering the tool for the first time.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The tool description lists a few filter examples (title, company, location, industry, seniority) and says 'etc.', which adds a general sense of available filters but no information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full explanatory burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource 'leads on LinkedIn Sales Navigator'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_get_lead_profile and linkedin_send_inmail, which have different purposes. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clearly indicates the tool's use case: searching for leads with filters. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the sibling tool names make it apparent that this is the search tool, while others handle profile retrieval, saving, messaging, and list management. The context is clear, though no exclusions are stated.

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