linkedin_connections

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes the scope requirement, which is useful, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens when scope is missing. The read-only nature is implied but not stated. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence that leads with the action and resource, immediately followed by the key requirement. No wasted words, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 paginated list tool, the description conveys the core function and a critical prerequisite. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not disclose return format, whether the response includes profiles, or potential errors. Acceptable but with gaps an agent might need to infer.

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 description coverage is 100% for both count and start, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. It does not explain acceptable value ranges beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('member's 1st-degree connections') with pagination noted. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like 'linkedin_search_people' or 'linkedin_network_stats', though it does not explicitly name an alternative for contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention scenarios where linkedin_network_stats or linkedin_search_people might be more appropriate. Only a prerequisite (approved connections product/scope) is given, which is not usage selection guidance.

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