search_people

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. It doesn't state whether login is required (despite linkedin_login and auth_status siblings existing), whether results are paginated, what happens when no matches are found, or what the return structure looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and easily scannable. The only issue is that it's too short to be maximally useful, but structurally it is concise and to the point.

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?

This is a moderate-complexity tool (2 params, one required) with no output schema and no annotations. The description ('Search LinkedIn people by keywords') is the minimum viable statement. It doesn't explain what result fields are returned, whether results are profiles you can then interact with via get_profile or send_message, or how the limit parameter behaves. For a search operation that likely feeds into many follow-up workflows among the siblings, this is under-specified.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'keywords' which maps to the required parameter, but the 'limit' parameter (which controls result count, up to 50) is not mentioned at all in the description. There is no guidance on how keywords should be formatted or whether they're free-form text or comma-separated terms. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 LinkedIn people by keywords' uses a clear verb (Search) and resource (LinkedIn people), and the keyword parameter is stated. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_companies or search_jobs, which share the same 'search by keyword' pattern. The purpose is clear but generic and doesn't differentiate within the sibling set.

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 like get_connections, get_profile, or search_people's sibling search tools. No context is given about whether this searches public LinkedIn profiles, requires login, or how results map to follow-up actions like send_connection_request. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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