List pending LinkedIn invitations

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

The description explicitly states the tool never accepts, ignores, or withdraws anything, and takes no `confirm`, adding real behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also discloses edge cases such as empty lists being normal and the difference between `total` and `returned`.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter semantics, read-only guarantee, output format, and edge-case handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently covers nuances without redundancy.

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 fully explains what entries contain, how timestamps are represented, that an empty list is valid, and how `total` relates to `returned`. Combined with parameter coverage and side-effect disclosure, nothing critical is missing for calling this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It thoroughly documents the `direction` enum values with defaults, `count` default and maximum, and even explains result-field meanings that relate to the parameters, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 lists 'invitations that are still awaiting a decision' and specifies the resource precisely. It also distinguishes sent vs received directions, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool `linkedin_list_connections`, so it falls just 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?

The description gives strong operational guidance: direction defaults, count limits, and read-only behavior. However, it never mentions when to prefer this tool over alternatives like `linkedin_list_connections` or `linkedin_send_connection_request`, leaving selection context implied rather than explicit.

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