Get one LinkedIn section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that section names are case-sensitive and returns raw data, which is useful but minimal beyond annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second provides usage guidance and a key constraint (case-sensitivity). No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool has 2 well-documented parameters, an output schema (present per context signals), and rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It mentions 'raw API response', which is helpful. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at output format, but the existing output schema handles that.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (domain enum with all values, maxPages with default/range). The tool description mentions 'exact name' and 'case-sensitive', reinforcing the schema but not adding new semantic meaning beyond it.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'single LinkedIn section', and emphasizes 'by exact name', 'raw API response', and case-sensitivity, which distinguishes it from siblings like linkedin_get_profile and linkedin_get_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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when you need one specific section or the raw API response', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools in the context help fill that gap.

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