linkedin_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether reading requires authentication, whether results are paginated, whether 'recientes' implies a fixed window, or what the response contains. Only the vague implication of a read-only retrieval is conveyed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is well-sized for a simple read tool. The brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, so it cannot score higher.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves too much unexplained for a tool in a dense 40-sibling surface. An agent has no basis for deciding between this and linkedin_invitations or linkedin_usage.

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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter (1-50) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions the limit or its meaning, so an agent cannot tell whether omitting it applies a default or returns everything.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Lee las notificaciones recientes') so the agent knows it retrieves notification data. However, it offers no differentiation from the many other read-oriented siblings (linkedin_posts_read, linkedin_invitations, linkedin_session_status), and the 'recientes' scope is never bounded.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a logged-in session is required for LinkedIn), and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the tool for checking notifications.

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