Get LinkedIn activity

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that the response can be large and suggests limiting scope via specific sections. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and enumerates activity types, second provides usage guidance and a caveat. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and a size warning. Output schema handles return value descriptions. Lacks mention of authentication or rate limits, but annotations cover safety. Very complete for an activity tool with rich schema.

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 100% with detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., enum values for domains, range for maxPagesPerDomain). The description does not repeat schema but adds a meta-hint to prefer specific sections. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets the user's LinkedIn social activity, enumerating specific categories (connections, posts, etc.) and usage context ('Use for questions about their network, content, or job search'). It distinguishes from siblings like linkedin_get_profile and linkedin_get_section by focusing on aggregate activity.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use for questions about their network, content, or job search.' Advises to 'prefer specific sections — these can be large,' guiding the agent to request only needed domains. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but is sufficient.

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