linkedin_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content (today's action counts vs daily caps, plus an interaction log), which implies a read-only status operation, but it never states there are no side effects, nor mentions auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource reported front-loaded and no filler. It could still be slightly tightened or split to separate the counts from the interaction log, but it is efficient.

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 simple read-only usage tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content adequately. It is incomplete regarding the meaning of 'showOutreach' and any behavioral side effects, which an agent would need.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'showOutreach' is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for this gap, leaving the agent unable to know what the flag controls.

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 verb ('Muestra') and resource (daily action counts against daily limits plus the interaction log), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like linkedin_applications_log or linkedin_session_status, which is why it falls 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?

The description explains what the tool reports but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. The reader can infer it is for checking remaining daily capacity, but nothing states that or names a sibling instead.

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