get_linkedin_chat_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the account ID source but doesn't describe what 'top' means (recency? engagement?), whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what format the messages are returned in. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that convey essential information. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides important authentication context. No unnecessary words or redundant information is present.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'top' means in the context of chat messages, doesn't describe the return format or structure, and provides minimal behavioral context. The authentication note is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall lack of completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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 action ('Get top chat messages') and resource ('LinkedIn management API'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_linkedin_conversations' or 'send_linkedin_chat_message', which would require more specific scope definition.

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 mentions that 'Account ID is taken from environment' which provides some context about authentication, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_linkedin_conversations' or 'send_linkedin_chat_message'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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