linkedin_get_conversation_history

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful ordering and scope detail ('oldest to newest', 'full message history'), but it does not disclose behavior like pagination, rate limits, or response structure beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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, front-loaded with the core action ('Read the full message history...') followed by a direct use-case instruction. Every word earns its place with zero 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?

This simple read operation has minimal parameters, rich schema, and strong annotations. The description fully explains its purpose and usage context, making it complete for its scope without needing to detail return values or complex behavior.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (conversation accepts ID, URN, or URL; limit has range and default). The tool description adds no extra semantic value for parameters, matching the baseline of 3 since schema carries the burden.

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 reads 'the full message history of one conversation, oldest to newest.' The verb 'read' and resource 'message history' are specific, and the phrase 'one conversation' differentiates it from sibling tools like linkedin_get_conversations (which lists conversations) or reply/send 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?

'Use this to get context before composing a reply' provides clear, actionable context for when to invoke the tool. It implies a specific workflow but doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives like linkedin_search_conversations, so it stops short of a 5.

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