Session status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: 'it does NOT open the browser or hit LinkedIn' and is a 'fast local check.' This tells the agent about side-effect-free execution and performance characteristics, which readOnly alone does not guarantee.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a relevant caveat and use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. Per rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 params; the description appropriately adds no parameter details since none exist.

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's function: 'Report whether a persistent LinkedIn profile is present.' This is a specific verb ('report') and resource ('persistent LinkedIn profile'), and it distinguishes this session-status tool from siblings like session_warmup and session_logout by focusing on the presence check.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use: 'Useful to decide whether a ``--login`` step is required.' It also notes this is a 'fast local check' that does not hit LinkedIn, implying alternatives like session_warmup are for actually establishing a session, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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