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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint ('visible relations by provider user ID') and the 'known profile' prerequisite, which is useful. It doesn't disclose pagination or rate-limit behavior, but with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the usage context is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 strong annotations and a rich user_id schema description, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't explain return values, but there is no output schema and the tool is simple enough that an agent can infer the list of relations. The main gap is not mentioning pagination via cursor, but the schema covers that parameter.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning by clarifying that user_id is a 'provider user ID' and that the tool operates on 'visible relations.' The user_id parameter description in the schema is already rich, but the tool description reinforces the ID-type requirement and the 'known profile' context, compensating for the cursor/search parameters that lack schema descriptions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('a LinkedIn user's visible relations by provider user ID'), which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes from siblings like linkedin_list_connections and linkedin_list_following by focusing on 'relations' and 'provider user ID', though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 says 'Use when network graph context is requested for a known profile,' which gives clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like linkedin_list_connections, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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