linkedin_export_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral limitation: the export may not include emails or connection dates, implying this tool's output is less complete. This goes beyond the annotations and gives useful context.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and formats; the second provides a crucial alternative. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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?

The tool is simple, has rich annotations, and a clear purpose. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the return value looks like (e.g., file content, path, JSON structure). The alternative reference adds context, but the missing output behavior keeps it from a 5.

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 50%; the description does not compensate. It mentions the format values (JSON, CSV, Markdown) but those are already in the enum. It adds no new meaning about the limit parameter or format behavior, so the description adds little value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Export connections to JSON, CSV or Markdown.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling linkedin_request_data_export by noting that tool is preferred for complete archives, so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicitly provides an alternative for a specific use case: 'For a genuinely complete archive (with emails and connection dates) prefer linkedin_request_data_export.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool, which is strong usage guidance.

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