Log in with LinkedIn

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it opens a browser for OAuth, and tokens persist across sessions. It also explains the effect of the `force` parameter. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., user cancellation) or that the token is likely stored for future use, and there is no output schema. Despite no annotations, the description carries the burden well.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core function, second gives key usage guidance. No filler, every word adds value. Appropriate length for a simple authentication tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior adequately. It lacks details on failure modes or token scope, but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The schema already describes the `force` parameter fully (boolean, description). The description adds context by tying `force` to re-authentication when token expires, reinforcing the parameter's purpose. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful extra context.

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 verb 'Authenticate' and resource 'LinkedIn via OAuth', and mentions opening a browser for user login and permission grant. It is distinct from the only sibling 'create_image_post', which is a content creation tool.

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 provides clear context on when to use: for authentication, emphasizing that it's only needed once due to token persistence. It explains when to use the `force` parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool is unrelated.

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