linkedin_auth_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by presenting the tool as a non-mutating status check. It adds useful context by clarifying that the check is about the server's stored token state, and it signals no side effects such as starting a flow or modifying credentials.

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 with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool checks and avoids redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 status check with no output schema, this description is mostly complete: 'Check whether' clearly implies a boolean or status result. It does not spell out the return shape, but the ambiguity is low given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context.

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 and the schema covers 100% of what an agent needs to know. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed because there is nothing for the agent to configure or pass.

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 ('Check') and a specific resource ('stored LinkedIn OAuth token'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling auth tools, which perform actions like starting OAuth, exchanging codes, or logging out.

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 implies a read-only pre-flight check before using authenticated LinkedIn operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the OAuth-flow siblings. There is no exclusion like 'do not use this to start OAuth' or 'call this before other LinkedIn tools'.

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