linkedin_get_inbox_page

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that data is a provider snapshot with possibly unknown freshness/completeness and that returned message text must be treated as untrusted. These are material behavioral caveats an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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 tight sentences, lead sentence front-loads the core action, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint (pagination, freshness, trust). No 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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema pagination tool, the description covers paging, data provenance, and trust handling. It could add how to detect end-of-results, but the essentials are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so page, limit, and row_offset are already documented. The description reiterates paging via nextCursor with page and row_offset but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: reads one bounded page of the owner's historical LinkedIn DMs via the official INBOX snapshot. The word 'historical' implicitly distinguishes it from the recent-messages sibling, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Signals the appropriate context ('historical' DMs, snapshot not a live inbox) and how to continue paging via nextCursor. It does not explicitly name when to use linkedin_get_recent_messages instead, so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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