Check LinkedIn session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning the maintenance warning about core page selectors. It does not contradict the annotation and provides value beyond the structured metadata, though it does not detail the exact output format.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys both the primary function and a secondary maintenance feature. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status-check tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool reports and an additional insight (selector drift). The lack of an output schema is not a gap because the description effectively defines the expected informational outcome.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies here since no parameter information is needed in the description.

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 ('Report whether') and identifies the resource ('saved LinkedIn session'), plus a distinct maintenance signal ('warn if core page selectors have drifted'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_login, since it checks session status rather than creating one.

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 clearly indicates the tool is used to check if the saved LinkedIn session is still logged in and to detect selector drift. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude any cases, so it lacks full when/when-not guidance.

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