linkedin_connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'without exposing credentials' is a useful behavioral disclosure about output sanitization. However, it does not mention side effects, preconditions, or what the tool actually returns.

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 compact sentence with the main action front-loaded and a valuable security qualifier appended. There is no filler or 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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter status check, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left guessing about the return shape and whether any connection must exist before calling it. A little more context would make it fully complete.

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 schema coverage is trivially complete. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 is precise: it names a specific verb ('Check'), a resource ('LinkedIn publishing configuration'), and adds a meaningful safety qualifier. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that start/complete connections or prepare/publish posts.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The tool name and sibling list imply this is for inspecting connection/publishing state rather than mutating it, but the description does not state this directly.

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