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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'visible' to indicate scope; it does not disclose relation types, pagination via cursor, or non-exhaustive output 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?

Two tight sentences, action first and use case second. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 operation with helpful annotations and a well-documented key parameter, this is minimally workable. It lacks a definition of what counts as a 'relation' and does not describe the output shape, and there is no output schema to fill that 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?

The schema documents user_id and account_id well, and the description reinforces that user_id is a provider user ID. But cursor and search have no descriptions, and at 50% schema coverage the description does not compensate for those undocumented fields or explain their role in listing relations.

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 specific action and resource: 'List a LinkedIn user's visible relations by provider user ID.' This is clear and matches the tool name. However, it doesn't distinguish 'relations' from overlapping siblings like linkedin_list_my_connections, linkedin_list_followers, or linkedin_list_following.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when network graph context is requested for a known profile.' This is a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the highest bar.

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