linkedin_get_profile_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context about non-Premium restrictions and the policy of reporting unavailable data explicitly rather than guessing, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 action and key metrics, and the restriction caveat is concise and useful. No unnecessary words or repetition of structured data.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the core data points and the handling of restricted data, giving an agent reasonable expectations for a read-only analytics tool. The explicit reporting behavior partially compensates for the lack of a formal return schema, though a bit more detail on response structure 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 coverage is 100% (empty schema), so there are no parameter meanings to expand on. The description correctly focuses on the data returned rather than parameters, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 profile analytics' and enumerates specific metrics (profile views, post impressions, search appearances, follower count), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_network_stats or get_profile. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 notes a limitation ('LinkedIn restricts several of these for non-Premium accounts') and mentions how unavailable data is handled, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when to use this tool versus other analytics or profile-related tools. Usage context is implied but not explicit with exclusions.

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