linkedin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention billing per call (1 credit), which is a useful operational trait, but it omits what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, authentication needs, or any error/rate-limit behavior.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It spends one sentence on billing and provides no functional information, so it does not earn its place as a useful tool description.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it fails to state the tool's purpose, expected input semantics, return value, or any usage context. The billing note is the only substantive detail, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The only parameter 'company' has a title and example in the schema, but the description adds no meaning about how to use it, its format, or whether it is required.

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 'Company Details Group: Company. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' merely restates the title and adds billing information. It contains no verb or explicit statement that the tool retrieves company details, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_v1_person_details.

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 such as get_v1_person_details or get_v1_search_peoples. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

The description provides no information about side effects, permissions, read-only status, or any behavioral implications. Since no annotations are present, the description fails to disclose essential behavioral traits.

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 short but includes irrelevant details such as 'Group: Person' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which do not aid understanding. It lacks meaningful structure and wastes space on non-functional information.

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 simple retrieval tool, the description omits key context such as what the returned details include, any prerequisites, or typical use cases. It is too sparse to be considered complete, even for a basic endpoint.

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?

The schema defines a single 'username' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. This leaves the parameter's purpose and format completely unexplained, adding no semantic value.

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 merely repeats the tool name with 'Person Details' without specifying what constitutes 'details'. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools like get_v1_company_details, making it tautological and vague.

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 the many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_v1_company_details). The description offers no context for usage scenarios.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The only additional information is billing ('1 Credits per call'), which is a cost metric, not a behavioral trait. The description does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or any other operational behavior. This is a serious 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 extremely brief (one sentence), but brevity is not conciseness when essential information is missing. It is under-specified and adds negligible value. While there is no verbosity to trim, the lack of actionable content prevents it from being considered appropriately concise.

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 absence of output schema, annotations, and any meaningful description, the tool is severely under-documented. The single parameter is only minimally described in the schema, and the description provides no additional context. This is inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's functionality, expected input, or behavior.

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 by explaining parameter usage. The description says nothing about the 'post_slug' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (name, title, example). It does not clarify how the slug is obtained, whether it is required (schema marks it optional), or how it affects the request. This is insufficient for a tool with a single, potentially ambiguous parameter.

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 'Post Details Group: Post.' merely restates the tool name and title without stating what the tool does. It lacks a clear verb+resource construction like 'Get details for a specific post.' Sibling tools (e.g., get_v1_company_details) suggest a similar pattern, but the description gives no explicit indication that this tool retrieves post details.

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. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternative tools. The description is entirely neutral and does not help the agent decide when to select this tool over its siblings.

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

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 only states billing per call, which is a cost detail but not core behavior. It does not indicate read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is wholly inadequate for a tool with no structural metadata.

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 extremely short but not concise in a beneficial way. It contains three fragments ('Pulse Details', 'Group: Pulse', 'Billing per call: 1 Credits') but none explain the tool's purpose. It's under-specified to the point of being nearly useless, not elegantly trimmed.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description fails to provide essential context like return type, expected usage patterns, or any behavioral caveats. Sibling tools would be indistinguishable based on this description alone, making it severely incomplete.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter, with an example and a descriptive URL. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It neither enriches nor contradicts 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 is essentially a tautology: 'Pulse Details' restates the tool name without specifying any action or resource. It does not say 'Get details of a Pulse article' or similar. It only mentions the group and billing, providing no differentiation from sibling detail tools like get_v1_post_details or get_v1_company_details.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess whether this is the right tool for retrieving Pulse content details.

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

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

Annotations are none, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' which is a behavioral note, but it does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or whether results are paginated. Beyond billing, it provides no behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise (one sentence plus title). It is front-loaded with the purpose and adds the billing note. However, it is under-specified, so conciseness is not a strength—it's minimal, not detailed.

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 search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides no information about return format, result limits, or how to use the parameters effectively. For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate for an AI agent to use it reliably.

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 coverage is only 33% (only countryCode has a description, but it's just an example). The description does not explain what each parameter does or how they combine. While the parameter names are self-explanatory (lastName, firstName), the lack of guidance on required combinations or filtering semantics is a gap.

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 'Search Peoples Group: Search' which clearly indicates the tool performs a people search. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_v1_company_details' and 'get_v2_search_all' by specifying 'Peoples Group', though it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., searching for people profiles).

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_v2_search_people'. Given multiple search tools exist, the description lacks context for choosing this specific one. It only states 'Search' with no preconditions or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not disclose what the autocomplete returns, any limitations, or how it differs from a full search. The description is extremely sparse, failing to carry the burden in the absence of annotations.

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 extremely short, but it sacrifices information for brevity. It does not front-load useful details, just vague keywords. A single sentence that adds no value is not effective conciseness.

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 one parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling search tools, the description is completely inadequate to guide invocation. It fails to clarify the input, output, or purpose, making the tool nearly unusable for an agent.

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%. The description does not explain the 'query' parameter beyond implying it is a search query. The schema shows an example 'bill', but the agent receives no meaning about how the query is used or expected format, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 only repeats the title 'Autocomplete' and adds the action 'Search' but does not specify what is autocompleted (people, posts, companies?) or the resource. This is a vague purpose that does not distinguish from sibling search tools like get_v2_search_people or get_v1_search_peoples.

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 vs. alternatives. The only hint is 'Search' and billing cost, which provides no contextual direction for an agent deciding between this and the many search sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, read-only nature, or permissions. The agent cannot infer what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 extremely brief (one line) but lacks substantive content. It is concise in word count but fails to convey meaning, and the sentence does not earn its place as it only restates the title.

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?

There is no output schema or description of return values. The tool's purpose and context are entirely missing, making it impossible for an agent to understand what will be returned or how to interpret 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?

The schema defines a single parameter 'vanityName' with an example, but the description provides no explanation of what this parameter represents or how it influences the tool's operation. The example hints at a username, but this is not explicit.

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 merely repeats the title 'Profile Contact Info / v2' without stating what the tool does, lacks a verb, and provides no distinction from sibling tools like get_v2_profile_details or get_v2_profile_header.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context or usage scenarios, leaving the agent without guidance on selecting this over similar tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions billing per call and group, with no information about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or output behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is already available.

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 extremely short, but it is also under-specified. It merely restates the title and adds billing info, which is not useful. Conciseness usually rewards brevity, but here it lacks the essential purpose and usage guidance, so it earns a low score.

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?

There is no output schema, and sibling tools like get_v2_profile_contact_info and get_v2_profile_header_details exist alerting that this tool may be one of several variants. The description provides no clarity on what details are retrieved, how the 'vanityName' parameter is used, or what the response looks like. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's context.

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?

The only parameter 'vanityName' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its meaning or format. The example 'williamhgates' hints at a username but the description adds no explicit semantics, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Profile Details / v2 Group: Person. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' essentially repeats the tool title without adding a verb or resource specification. It implies retrieving profile information but lacks an explicit action, and it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_v2_profile_header_details or get_v1_person_details.

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, what types of requests it handles, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_v2_profile_header_details or get_v2_profile_contact_info. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives zero behavioral detail. It does not disclose what the tool returns, side effects, access requirements, or any operational characteristics. The description is purely a title and pricing note.

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 extremely brief, but it is not informational. It includes irrelevant details (group, billing) while omitting core functionality. It reads as a metadata label rather than a useful tool description.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides no context to understand what the tool does, what inputs are expected, or what data it retrieves. It is wholly inadequate for safe or accurate invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'vanityName' appears only in the schema with an example; the description provides no explanation of its meaning or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('Profile Header Details / v2') and adds only a group label and billing info. It lacks a clear verb or resource description, so the purpose remains unspecified beyond the name itself.

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 the sibling tools (e.g., get_v2_profile_details, get_v2_profile_contact_info). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only mentions billing cost (1 credit per call) and gives no information about side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response characteristics. The tool's actual behavior is completely opaque.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It repeats the title and adds a billing note, offering no actionable information. It is not a well-structured or efficient description—it is mostly 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, scope, or any usage context, leaving the agent with no meaningful information to decide when or how to invoke it.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for parameters like geoUrn, currentCompany, or start. The parameter names provide some hints (e.g., lastName, company) but the description provides zero additional semantic value beyond what the schema shows.

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 only repeats the tool name ('Search All / v2') and states it belongs to the 'Search' group. It does not specify what entities are searched (people, companies, posts?) or how 'All' differs from sibling tools like get_v2_search_people. This is barely more than a tautology.

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 siblings. With multiple search-related tools (get_v2_search_people, get_v1_search_peoples, get_v2_autocomplete), the description gives no criteria for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it provides none. Nothing is said about rate limits, side effects, response behavior, or other operational traits beyond the unhelpful 'Billing per call: 1 Credits.'

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?

While the description is brief at one line, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The space is padded with a group label and billing note that add little value, making it a missed opportunity to be helpfully brief.

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 7-parameter search endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and heavily overlapping siblings, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what makes this v2 search distinct from get_v1_search_peoples or how it relates to get_v2_search_all.

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?

The 7 string parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing. The schema gives raw names (e.g., 'start', 'geoUrn', 'currentCompany') and examples but no meaning, format, or interaction rules.

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 People / v2' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It gives no specific verb+resource beyond what the name already says, and it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool get_v1_search_peoples.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The existence of get_v1_search_peoples and get_v2_search_all makes this gap even worse—no exclusions, prerequisites, or context is provided.

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