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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description consistently portrays a simple list operation and adds the target scope, but it does not mention response format or pagination behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the 'me' convention is stated immediately after, making the essential usage instruction immediately visible.

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 read-only list operation with detailed parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers the main invocation choice: account owner versus known user. It omits explicit return-value or pagination context, but these are not critical for a straightforward list tool with safe annotations.

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 description only echoes what the schema already states about user_id='me'. It adds no meaning for offset or account_id, and since schema coverage is 67%, the description does not compensate for the partially uncovered parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'List followers of the account owner or a known LinkedIn user.' It clearly identifies the target account and differentiates from the sibling tool linkedin_list_following by naming the followers relationship explicitly.

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 provides clear usage context by stating that user_id='me' refers to the connected account owner and that a known LinkedIn user can also be used. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the basic selection rule is present.

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