run_linkedin_people_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'searches' and does not mention output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and scope. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how results are returned, how filters interact, what the pagination behavior is, or any other details that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 17 parameters with only 24% description coverage. The description adds a general 'rich set of advanced filters' and lists a few categories (company, title, seniority, location, experience, industry), but does not provide meaningful detail for most parameters such as firstNames, lastNames, pastCompany, yearsOfExperienceFilter, or scraperMode. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool's function: it searches LinkedIn people with an optional free-text query and advanced filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_linkedin_company_search and run_linkedin_company_employee, which target different resources.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for LinkedIn people, with support for various filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous given the sibling tools.

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