Check remaining daily quota for a profile. Returns current usage vs limits, ramp-up status, allowed hours, and whether actions are currently allowed. profile_id is optional — if omitted, the user's active (or first) profile is used; if no profile exists, the error response lists all available profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile_id | No | UUID of the user_profile to check. Optional — defaults to the active profile. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: what data is returned (usage vs limits, ramp-up, allowed hours, actions allowed) and the fallback behavior for missing profile_id. No contradictions.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state the purpose and return values, then provide parameter semantics. Every sentence adds critical information without repetition or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers inputs, behavior, and return details. It could optionally mention that the response structure (e.g., JSON keys) but the listed fields provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the output.
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 covers profile_id with 100% description coverage. The description adds semantic value by explaining the optionality, default behavior (active or first profile), and the error case when no profile exists, which the schema alone does not convey.
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 specifies the action ('Check remaining daily quota') and the resource ('a profile'), and lists specific return fields (usage vs limits, ramp-up status, allowed hours, actions allowed). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on contacts, campaigns, tasks, etc.
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 states when to use the tool (to check daily quota) and provides context on the optional profile_id parameter, including default behavior and error response. While it does not explicitly exclude scenarios, the tool's purpose is sufficiently scoped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search tools (search_job_postings, search_google_xray, search_linkedin_people, search_web) and messaging tools (send_connection_request, send_linkedin_message, reply_to_chat). However, detailed descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_contacts_to_campaign, list_campaigns). No mixing of conventions.
48 tools is high but justifiable given the broad domain (LinkedIn outreach, CRM, campaigns, job postings, etc.). However, some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple search tools).
The tool set covers the entire workflow: searching, connecting, messaging, campaign management, CRM operations (fields, stages, tasks, notes), job postings, and posting. No obvious gaps.
