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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the Premium gating with its degraded output, pagination via nextStart, and that some entries are aggregated with no profile URN. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then entitlement caveat, then pagination and data-shape notes. No filler; every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys return shape (viewer entries, aggregated non-URN entries) and pagination mechanics, plus the Premium failure mode. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the round-trip pattern (use nextStart from a prior response as start), which is operational guidance the schema only hints at.

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 recent viewers of your own LinkedIn profile, and names the exact surface ("Who viewed your profile"). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling linkedin_get_profile (own profile data) and linkedin_get_shared_connections.

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: it is a Premium feature on the connected account, and without Premium LinkedIn returns blurred or empty results. It also explains the pagination workflow. It does not name an alternative tool for non-Premium scenarios, so it stops short of 5.

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