linkedin_get_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable context by stating it returns each setting's current value and a direct link, explaining why (manual changes). This goes beyond the structured safety hints without contradicting them.

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 action and resource, and every word earns its place. The category list is efficiently parenthetical, and the manual-change note is brief but informative.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and the categories available. No output schema is needed because the return value is clearly summarized as each setting's value and a link.

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 already fully documents the 'category' parameter with an enum and description, so the description adds no new semantic value. It does repeat the category list, but the schema carries the load, yielding the baseline score.

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 LinkedIn account settings, lists the specific categories available, and distinguishes it from the sibling update tool by focusing on read-only behavior. The verb 'Read' and resource 'LinkedIn account settings' 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 implies this tool is for reading settings and notes that most settings must be changed manually, which guides use away from expecting modification. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling 'linkedin_update_setting' as the alternative for changing settings, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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