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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it is an account-introspection call that reveals which premium products (Sales Navigator, Recruiter) are active, which directly gates whether sibling tools like linkedin_search_sales_navigator will function.

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 return payload is front-loaded and the usage rationale follows immediately; every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract itself, and it does by listing the four returned data points. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly reflects this by describing no inputs and focusing entirely on what the call returns.

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 precise verb+resource ('Returns information about the connected LinkedIn account') and enumerates the exact fields returned: display name, public profile URL, LinkedIn URN, and active premium features. This is clearly distinguishable from profile-fetching siblings, which target other users rather than the authenticated account.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'before choosing search or messaging strategies' to understand available capabilities, giving a concrete decision context. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools or stating when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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