Search LinkedIn Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: it searches the 'current desktop inbox' and results are 'cursor-paginated current conversation cards', providing insight into pagination and response format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and filters. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: search scope, available filters, required criterion, and pagination. The output schema likely explains the return format, so no additional detail is needed there. However, it could clarify the purpose of context_id and request_id.

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 only 13%, so the description partially compensates by explaining the category and filter values in prose. It also mentions 'recipient or message keywords' corresponding to the query parameter and 'cursor-paginated' for the cursor parameter. However, required parameters context_id and request_id are not explained, and the description does not fully map all parameters.

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 that the tool searches the current desktop inbox by recipient or keywords, with optional category and filter parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like linkedin.jobs.search and linkedin.people.search by explicitly targeting messaging conversations.

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 on what it searches (desktop inbox) and states the requirement that at least one search criterion is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous and separates it from other search tools.

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