Search LinkedIn Connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral nuance by stating the server enforces first-degree and that it wraps LinkedIn's current visible People surface, which clarifies the tool's limitations and connection to the UI.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then supported filters, then the distinguished alternative. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 high parameter count and complexity, the description covers the key aspects: scope, enforced degree, supported filters, and the alternative tool. Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. It lacks minor details like pagination behavior, but those are in the schema. This is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 low (13%), so the description must compensate. It lists the categories of supported filters and keyword types, giving an overview of parameters. However, it doesn't explain the structure of the filters object or specific parameter formats beyond what the schema already provides, so it adds some but not comprehensive value.

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 it searches 'the configured account's established first-degree connections' via LinkedIn's People surface, using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly contrasts with linkedin.people.search, which handles broader degree discovery, making the purpose distinct from siblings.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: when to use this tool (searching first-degree connections) and when to use the alternative (linkedin.people.search for broader degrees). It also notes that the server always enforces first degree, informing the agent of a constraint.

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