linkedin_network_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses a key requirement: the r_1st_connections_size product/scope, which is critical for authorization. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as response format, potential errors, or side effects (which are minimal for a read operation). Adds some value but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the purpose stated first and the scope requirement second. No unnecessary words, and the information is structured efficiently.

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 nested objects, no output schema), the description and schema together provide adequate information for correct invocation. It clarifies the purpose and authorization requirement. It does not explicitly state the return value format, but the 'count' phrasing makes it likely a simple number. Missing only minor detail about response shape.

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% since personUrn has a description including its default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the default behavior is already captured in the parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('member's network size'), and clarifies it as '1st-degree connection count', distinguishing it from sibling tools like linkedin_connections (which likely lists connections) and linkedin_get_profile (which fetches profile details). Clear and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for obtaining the network size, but no exclusions or comparisons with siblings like linkedin_connections are provided. Guidance is minimal and left to inference.

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