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

Annotations already declare the safe read/idempotent profile, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: the Premium prerequisite and its blurred/empty fallback, the pagination mechanic, and the fact that some entries are aggregated with no profile URN. These are real traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then adds only high-value caveats (Premium gating, pagination, aggregated entries). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return semantics, and it does so well: aggregated entries without profile URNs and the blurred/empty fallback. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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% and the schema already documents `start` and the nextStart handoff, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the pagination contract and ties it to the aggregated-entry behavior, adding modest value beyond the schema text.

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+resource ("Returns the recent viewers of your own LinkedIn profile") and names the exact surface ("Who viewed your profile"). The 'your own profile' scoping cleanly separates it from sibling tools like linkedin_get_profile or linkedin_get_my_engagement.

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?

Gives clear context for use: it is the viewer-list surface on the connected account, and notes the Premium gating that determines whether results are usable. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when a sibling would be preferred, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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