linkedin_get_followers

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description needs only to add context beyond those traits. It does add a useful nuance that followers may not be connections, which clarifies the returned relationship. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or what exact fields are returned, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's core function. It front-loads the action and resource, with no superfluous words or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and good annotation coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core behavior and the connection nuance, and the schema handles the limit parameter. Since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned return format, but 'List people' implies a list of profiles, which is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.

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 input schema covers the only parameter (limit) with a description ('Defaults to 50'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, relying entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 action ('List people who follow the signed-in user') and specifies the resource scope ('followers'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'linkedin_get_following' by indicating direction ('follow the signed-in user'). It also clarifies that followers need not be connections, adding subtle differentiation from 'linkedin_get_connections'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states its purpose without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or better-suited tools for similar scenarios. There is only an implicit inference that this tool is for viewing followers, but no 'when not to use' direction.

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