linkedin_get_network_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific metrics returned, but it does not clarify edge cases such as whether the pending invitation count includes both sent and received invitations, or if the counts have any pagination or rate-limit implications. This is a minor gap given the simple read-only nature.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key output metrics without any filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 low complexity (no params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (three specific count types). It does not describe the output format (e.g., JSON structure), but that is not essential for a simple summary tool. A tiny bit more detail on the semantics of 'pending invitation counts' would make it fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs, and no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and identifies the exact resource ('network size') with the metrics included (connection count, follower count, pending invitation counts). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling getters like get_connections, get_followers, and get_invitations, which return full lists rather than aggregated counts.

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 implies usage for obtaining a quick numeric overview of network size, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. With zero parameters, the use case is straightforward, but there is no direct comparison to siblings.

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