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 it well: it discloses the blocking wait for manual entry including 2FA/captcha, that the session is persisted to disk and reused, and the deliberate anti-automation rationale to avoid LinkedIn blocks. It omits what a login failure looks like or how completion is signaled.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with the action, then persistence semantics, then the rationale. Every sentence contributes distinct information with 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?

For a login tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the interaction model but is silent on return values and how success versus timeout/failure is reported to the agent. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% and the single timeoutSeconds parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (opens a browser window at the login screen) and its defining scope (waits for manual user login). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as linkedin_session_status and linkedin_close_browser without needing their 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?

Implies the tool is the entry point for establishing a session before other authenticated calls, and explains why login is intentionally manual. It never explicitly names an alternative or states when NOT to use it (e.g., 'skip if linkedin_session_status shows an active session').

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