LinkedIn sign-in status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful, non-redundant context: it returns no cookies or tokens, and the agent has no capability to log in itself. It omits how the check is performed or whether results are cached, which is why this sits at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only constraint, then purpose, then the security boundary, then remediation. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is padded.

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 values need not be described; the description nonetheless clarifies the negative case ('not signed in') and the agent-capability boundary. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with annotations covering safety, this is complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema, and it correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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+resource: checks whether the persistent browser profile is signed in to LinkedIn. No sibling tool addresses authentication state, so it is trivially distinguishable, and the leading '[READ - no LinkedIn state is changed]' frames the operation type immediately.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('diagnose NOT_AUTHENTICATED / LOGIN_REQUIRED errors') and what to do when it reports a negative result ('the USER must run `npm run login`'). The when-to-use condition and the follow-up path are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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