linkedin_get_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It states it reads sections and mentions scroll iterations for lazy-loaded entries, but omits authorization needs, rate limits, or whether it modifies state. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value, and the description is easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the main operation and scroll behavior, but with no output schema, it does not explain the return format (e.g., list of sections). For a read tool with optional parameters, it is minimally complete but lacks output expectations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds 'optionally filter by a search term' but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 tool reads LinkedIn profile sections (experience, education, skills, etc.) with optional filtering. It distinguishes from sibling read tools (e.g., get_profile, get_contact_info) by specifying sections.

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 indicates optional parameters but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like linkedin_get_profile or linkedin_get_contact_info. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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