Search People

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world nature of this tool. The schema adds a useful caveat that plain company names are silently ignored by LinkedIn's currentCompany filter, but the main description discloses no additional behavioral traits such as result limits, pagination, or network-scope behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful context that could have been included without much bloat, keeping it just below a top score.

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?

The schema fully documents all parameters, annotations cover safety and open-world behavior, and an output schema exists, so the definition is mostly sufficient for invocation. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation in the description itself, but the tool name and parameter guidance compensate.

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 parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The detailed current_company guidance lives in the schema, not in the description.

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 a verb and resource: it searches for people on LinkedIn. This distinguishes it from other search tools like search_companies and search_jobs, though it does not explicitly contrast it with person-related siblings such as get_sidebar_profiles or get_person_profile.

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 establishes a clear use case: finding people. The current_company parameter description adds valuable routing guidance, directing agents to get_company_profile for URN lookup and get_company_employees for company-wide demographics. However, the tool description itself does not provide a broader when-not-to-use statement versus other people lookup tools.

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