search_linkedin_people

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to disclose expected behavior such as pagination, result format, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the AI agent about important behavioral aspects.

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 sentence, but it adds no value over the tool name. While not verbose, it is under-specified and fails to justify its existence as a separate explanation.

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 two parameters, lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, or any default behavior. Sibling tools provide no search alternatives, but the description alone is insufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the interpretation of 'keywords' or any special search syntax.

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 'Search for people on LinkedIn' clearly states the verb (Search) and resource (people on LinkedIn). It is nearly identical to the tool name, but it is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools which are all mutations or single-profile retrievals.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on search strategies, filtering, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without any usage context.

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