Check the saved LinkedIn session

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that it 'loads the feed once to check', which implies a network call despite being read-only. It also assures that 'no cookie or session content is ever returned' and clarifies the --dry-run behavior. These details give the agent important expectations beyond annotations.

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 two sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral notes and the no-arguments statement. Every clause adds necessary information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it checks (loads feed), what it returns (status, save time, verification time), and edge case behavior (dry-run). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments.' This meets the baseline for no-parameter tools, and the statement removes any ambiguity, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('reports') and resource ('saved LinkedIn session'), and specifies the exact outputs: whether it still works, when saved, last verified. This clearly differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like linkedin_login or linkedin_create_post.

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 makes it clear this is a status check tool by stating what it reports. While no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned, the context of sibling tool names (all performing actions) makes the intended usage obvious. A slight deduction for not explicitly saying 'use before other LinkedIn operations'.

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