socials_linkedin_connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses critical behavioral traits: 'read-only' and 'no request sent', plus return value examples. This provides clear expectations for side effects and outcomes, though it omits auth requirements or potential errors.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose, then adds return values and safety note. No redundant or filler content; every part 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, yet the description compensates by listing return values and emphasizing the read-only nature. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though listing more possible statuses (e.g., 'pending_received') would enhance completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'profile_url' clearly documented with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Check connection status') with a specific resource ('a LinkedIn user'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling 'socials_linkedin_connect' by noting 'read-only, no request sent'. It also lists expected return values, making its purpose 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 implies usage for checking status before connecting, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'socials_linkedin_connect'. The phrase 'no request sent' hints at a non-destructive alternative but lacks direct guidance on tool selection.

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