linkedin_search_people

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 only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key parameters.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a search tool with many siblings, the description lacks important context such as expected output format, prerequisites (e.g., logged-in session), and behavioral specifics, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 baseline 3 is appropriate. The description lists parameters by name but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions (e.g., it doesn't explain that 'currentCompany' expects a URN, though the schema does).

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 action 'Search LinkedIn for people' and lists the main filter parameters (keywords, location, connection-degree, current-company), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_search_companies and linkedin_search_jobs.

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 implies usage for searching people via keywords and filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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