linkedin_auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says it checks the local token, but it does not disclose what happens when the token is missing, expired, or invalid; whether it makes a network call; what the return value looks like; or whether any side effects occur. This is thin for an auth-status tool that an agent needs to interpret safely.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the core action ('Check the local token') and then gives the purpose. It is concise and free of filler; a slight expansion on the meaning of 'local token' would make it more useful, but as written it is efficient.

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 status-check tool, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, the agent has no information about the shape of the auth status result, possible states, or failures. Given the existence of sibling tools that require authentication, knowing how to interpret this result is important, and this description leaves that unspecified.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to interpret. The description correctly indicates the operation is self-contained and requires no input, which is the only parameter-related information that matters here. Baseline 4 for no-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('local token') plus the outcome ('identify the authenticated LinkedIn member'). It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, which are all action-oriented (publish, comment).

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 implies this tool is for verifying authentication status before performing LinkedIn actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The sibling tools are clearly different in function, so the intended context is somewhat inferable, but no explicit usage guidance or exclusions are provided.

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