linkedin_call

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

Discloses automatic header injection for /rest/ paths and a hard limitation on Comments, but with no annotations it leaves other behaviors (auth failures, error format, side effects of POST/PUT/DELETE) undocumented.

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?

Compact and focused: two short paragraphs plus a warning. No filler or redundant explanation.

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?

Provides essential context for a generic endpoint tool, including base URL and a negative scope, but lacks examples, response format, or error handling guidance that would make it fully self-contained.

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?

Only the path parameter receives meaningful description (relative URLs and /rest/ header behavior); body and query are left generic, and method relies on its enum. Schema coverage is only 25%, and the description does not compensate for the remaining parameters.

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?

Clearly states it calls any LinkedIn endpoint directly, positioning it as a catch-all beyond specialized siblings. The phrase 'rest of the API' distinguishes it from the listed specific tools.

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?

Explains when to use it (to reach endpoints not covered by the catalog) and explicitly warns that Comments are not reachable. Could be more explicit about preferring sibling tools when they match, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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