linkedin_request_data_export

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description complements these by disclosing the trigger action and expected outcome: LinkedIn emails a download link within minutes to 24 hours. It also details what the archive includes. No contradictions with annotations; the 'Trigger' wording aligns with the non-read-only hint.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then value proposition, then delivery expectation. Every sentence contributes information; no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description effectively covers what the action is, why it's valuable, and what the user will receive (email link). Given the tool's simplicity and the supportive annotations, the description is complete enough without needing to explain return formats or prerequisites.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe; the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies.

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 opens with 'Trigger LinkedIn's official data export,' a specific verb and resource. It further specifies that this is 'the only way to obtain a genuinely complete archive' and enumerates contents (connections with emails, full message history, activity logs), which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling export and scraping tools.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: it positions this tool as the unique route to a complete archive, implicitly advising its use over scraping or partial exports. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., linkedin_export_connections) or state when not to use them, but the 'only way' framing gives a clear usage trigger for complete-archive needs.

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