run_linkedin_people_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether the search is read-only, whether it requires authentication or a paid account, how results are paginated (despite startPage/maxResults), or what scraperMode changes. For a 17-parameter scraping tool this is a substantial gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail the rest of the definition lacks.

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?

With 17 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent has no way to learn filter semantics, result limits, pagination, or return shape from this definition.

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 0% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Saying 'optional query terms and advanced filters' hints that parameters are optional and filter-shaped, but it names none of the actual filters (locations, seniorityLevelFilter, industryIds, currentCompany, etc.), leaving the agent to guess from raw property names.

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 and resource: 'Searches LinkedIn people'. That is clear enough for an agent to know it is a people-search tool rather than a company or email tool. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as run_linkedin_company_employee or run_linkedin_email, and 'advanced filters' is left undefined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains several LinkedIn tools (company_search, company_employee, email, domain), and the description does not state which one to pick under which condition, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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