linkedin_list_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe local read. The description adds the clarification 'Never writes to LinkedIn,' reinforcing the read-only nature, but doesn't describe rate limits, pagination, or what receipts entail.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and its two modes, and a clear negative constraint. No waste.

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 listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete: it doesn't clarify output shape (no output schema), pagination, or how 'receipts' are represented. The 'which' enum values are described but not exhaustively mapped to behaviors.

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 coverage is 0%, but there is only one enum parameter with default 'pending'. The description lists the two possible values' meanings ('pending proposals awaiting approval' and 'recent actions with final status and receipts'), which adds some semantic clarity. However, it doesn't explain the distinction between 'pending' and omitted default explicitly. Baseline for 1 param with good description is 3.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (pending proposals/recent actions), and clearly distinguishes the two modes. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool, but the 'never writes' clause helps distinguish it from linkedin_execute_action and linkedin_prepare_action.

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 implies when to use each mode ('pending' vs 'recent') but doesn't explicitly say 'use this to check status before executing' or route to alternatives. The 'which' parameter semantics are implicit; no explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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