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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and has external side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the provider-issued token constraint but does not elaborate on the side effects of 'reporting' a visit (e.g., notifications, rate limits, or data persistence). It does not contradict annotations, but it adds limited behavioral context beyond them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical token constraint. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition. It is highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the essential purpose, the token origin, and the primary pitfall. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema descriptions, this is not a critical 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 100%, with both parameters well-described. The tool description adds a crucial semantic warning: the notify_visit_token must be the exact token from a resolved profile and must not be replaced with other identifiers. This goes beyond the schema's basic description and helps prevent misuse.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a LinkedIn profile visit' using a specific token. It identifies the resource (LinkedIn profile visit) and the required input (notify_visit_token), distinguishing it from profile-fetching siblings by emphasizing the token from a resolved profile. It avoids ambiguity and effectively sets it apart from tools like linkedin_get_profile.

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 implies when to use this tool: after a profile has been resolved and a notify_visit_token is available. It explicitly warns against substituting user_id, profile URL, or public identifier, which is a key usage constraint. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the context slightly implicit.

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