linkedin_build_lead_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does convey that the tool produces a plan and Boolean queries rather than executing a search, but it leaves the planning process, output structure, and any limitations unexplained.

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, focused sentence that immediately identifies the input (business objectives) and output (plan and Boolean queries). Every word contributes value 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?

The schema covers parameters well, but there is no output schema and the description only vaguely mentions a 'structured plan' without specifying its contents, fields, or query formatting. This is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already present, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 states a clear action: translating a business objective into a structured LinkedIn lead search plan and Boolean queries. It identifies the core resource and output, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling tool linkedin_generate_boolean_search.

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 implies an objective-driven lead search planning use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus linkedin_generate_boolean_search or other siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria are mentioned.

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