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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description goes beyond them by disclosing that provider availability may restrict following data for non-self users — a real behavioral constraint the annotations cannot express. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, with purpose stated first and the parameter preference second. Every clause carries 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the self-vs-other distinction, and a known data-availability limitation. It stops short of describing pagination behavior despite an offset parameter, which is the one remaining gap.

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 67% and the user_id description is already extremely rich (how to obtain the ID, what never to pass). The description adds only a soft preference for 'me', which is a marginal complement to the schema's default and does not address the undocumented 'offset' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: users followed by the connected account owner. The phrasing distinguishes it from linkedin_list_followers and linkedin_list_my_connections by-direction, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to reason it out.

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?

Offers a clear default directive ('Prefer user_id=me') and a caveat about provider availability for other users, which implies when this tool is useful. However it never routes the agent to alternatives (e.g. list_followers, list_user_relations) or states when not to use this tool.

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