linkedin_login

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses the side effect (credentials saved locally after consent), the operational constraint (URL must be opened on the MCP server's computer), and a prerequisite (configured client ID/secret). It stops short of saying whether the call blocks waiting for consent or what the URL's lifetime is.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and error-recovery trigger, followed by return value, side effect, and prerequisite. No filler; the closing security instruction is short and actionable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: when to call it, that it returns a URL rather than a token, that a browser step is involved, that credentials persist locally, and what must be configured beforehand.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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+resource ("Connect or reconnect LinkedIn Ads") and states the return value (a login URL). It never names the obvious sibling `linkedin_login_status`, so the agent must infer the distinction between initiating auth and checking auth status, which keeps it 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?

It gives a concrete trigger condition: use when connecting, reconnecting, or recovering from EXPIRED_ACCESS_TOKEN/401. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or say what to do when already authenticated (the `linkedin_login_status` case), but the context is clear.

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