Check what the LinkedIn token can do

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that this is a read-only inspection of stored token state, names the three facts returned, and frames it as a diagnostic rather than a mutation. It does not mention whether it triggers a network call to LinkedIn or refresh side effects, but it does not overstate behavior either.

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, front-loaded with what is reported, then the diagnostic trigger. Every clause adds information; nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail need not be repeated, and the description still previews the key fields. For a zero-param diagnostic tool this is nearly sufficient; the only gap is not clarifying whether the check is purely local or performs a live token introspection.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by referring to 'the stored LinkedIn token'.

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 and resource (report LinkedIn token status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: expiry, refreshability, and granted scopes. Clearly distinct from siblings like linkedin_check_post and linkedin_publish_post.

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 an explicit trigger ('use this when publishing fails') and a diagnostic goal (detect missing Share on LinkedIn product), which routes the agent away from linkedin_check_post when the symptom is publish failure. No exclusion of other alternatives, but the trigger is concrete.

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