linkedin_filter_leads

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that filtering occurs but doesn't say whether it mutates the original batch or returns a new set, how multiple criteria are combined, or whether minScore is inclusive. This leaves meaningful behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it names the action and the filterable attributes efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 five-parameter optional-filter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the relationship between filters (AND/OR), the return value, or what happens when no filters are provided, so an agent may call it with incomplete expectations.

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 each parameter is already documented. The tool description mostly restates the same filter dimensions without adding semantic details such as how criteria interact or threshold inclusivity, so it adds minimal value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Filters') and resource ('lead batches') and enumerates the available filter dimensions, making the core function immediately recognizable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the filtering action is distinct enough among the listed 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over the many lead-analysis siblings, and there is no mention of prerequisite steps or pipeline context. The only usage signal is the generic 'Filters lead batches,' leaving the agent to infer when this tool applies.

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