linkedin_follow

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a non-destructive write. The description adds useful behavioral context (following shows posts in feed, does not require a connection, and the tool can both follow and unfollow), but it omits other potential side effects or requirements (e.g., authentication, notifications). This is moderate added value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and value proposition, with no redundant or filler content. It is well-structured, front-loading the primary action and then providing contextual benefit.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the effect of following. It could go deeper into edge cases (e.g., what happens when unfollowing), but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, it covers the essential context well.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, clearly documenting the 'follow' boolean and the 'identifier' variants. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema—it only reinforces the follow/unfollow action. Since the schema fully carries parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Follow or unfollow a person') and the resource (a person), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool linkedin_follow_company. It also explains the purpose—seeing posts in the feed without a connection—which further contrasts with connection request 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?

The description offers strong contextual guidance by indicating this tool is useful for people who do not accept invitations, implying when to follow instead of sending a connection request. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., linkedin_send_connection_request) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit exclusions.

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