linkedin_get_notifications

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 context about the specific notification categories and a tip for unreadOnly, but does not disclose behavior beyond what annotations and parameter descriptions already 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations.

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 no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and how to use the main option. No output schema is expected for such a tool, and return format is not critical for selection.

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%, and both parameters (limit, unreadOnly) have descriptions in the schema. The description's mention of unreadOnly as 'triaging what is new' aligns with the schema's 'Only return unread notifications' without adding new semantic depth.

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 'Read LinkedIn notifications' with a specific verb and resource, and lists content types (reactions, comments, invitations, job alerts, profile views). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_delete_notification and linkedin_mark_notifications_read, which operate on notifications differently.

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 context by defining what the tool reads and suggests 'Use unreadOnly to triage only what is new,' which provides practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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