LinkedIn sign-in status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the payload contents, notably the 'days until the token expires' signal, which tells the agent it can detect an impending expiry before attempting a write. It does not say what happens when no account is connected or when the token has already expired.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most actionable element is placed last for emphasis: account, then scopes, then expiry countdown. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming all three fields an agent would care about. The one gap is failure-state behavior, i.e., whether it reports 'not connected' versus erroring, which matters for an auth pre-check.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The sentence correctly makes no attempt to describe inputs and spends its words on the return content instead.

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?

States a specific verb ('Shows') and enumerates exactly what is returned: the connected LinkedIn account, granted scopes, and token expiry countdown. That is far more concrete than a tautology like 'gets auth status.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_my_profile, which could plausibly be confused with 'which account is connected,' so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight check before calling create_*_post or delete_post, but the description never says so, nor does it name any alternative or exclusion. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool the implication is fairly strong, which keeps it at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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