linkedin_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral depth by stating the session and cookie details reported, and indirectly implies a cached verdict (via the 'force' parameter), giving the agent useful runtime expectations.

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 sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no required inputs, output schema present), the description fully covers purpose, output behavior, and when to invoke it. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter 'force' is fully described in the input schema with its purpose and cache validity (5 minutes). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need further param detail, and the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Check') and clear resource ('LinkedIn session'), then details the exact output: which cookies are loaded, from where, and who the session belongs to. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like auth_export_cookies or system_status.

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 states when to call: 'Call this first if any other tool returns an AUTH_EXPIRED or AUTH_MISSING error, and before starting a long workflow.' This provides strong contextual guidance, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools explicitly.

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