linkedin_session_status

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full behavioral disclosure burden. It proactively reveals that the tool may attach to an existing browser, never navigates the user's own tab, and opens an owned dedicated tab when needed. This goes beyond a simple 'check status' and gives agents useful side-effect awareness.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 status tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is checked, when to call it, and relevant side effects. The main gap is that it does not describe the exact response shape or possible error states, but the named fields give enough context for an agent to interpret the tool's output.

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 an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by listing the session attributes an agent can verify (auth method, browserConnected, authenticated, usageToday), which effectively compensates for the absence of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check LinkedIn Sales Navigator browser connection, authentication, and today's usage budgets.' It also frames the tool as a preflight check distinct from sibling data-operation tools, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before other tools to verify the session.' It also explains tab-attachment behavior and states it is consistent with sibling tools. It does not mention when not to use the tool, but no alternative status/checking sibling exists, so the missing exclusion is minor.

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