linkedin_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a URL is returned, that the member must approve it, that a loopback redirect spins up a local listener awaiting the callback, and that tokens are never returned. Remaining gaps (session persistence, error/timeout behavior) are minor.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, each sentence adding distinct information (action, return value, loopback behavior, token-handling guarantee). No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the return value (a URL), the interactive step required, and the credential-handling guarantee, which is what an agent needs to invoke this correctly. Only the sequencing with linkedin_finish_login is left implicit.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-related that the description needs to compensate for.

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 and resource ('Start LinkedIn member sign-in') and clearly frames the tool as the beginning of an auth flow. It does not name the sibling it pairs with (linkedin_finish_login) or contrast itself with linkedin_status/linkedin_logout, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 flow is implied: the member must open the returned URL and approve, which suggests a follow-up step exists, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance relative to linkedin_finish_login or linkedin_status.

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