linkedin_followers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does but not its side effects (none expected), required authentication, or rate limits. For a read operation, minimal transparency is acceptable, but it should note that it is read-only.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without 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?

Given the schema fully describes parameters and no output schema exists, the description should hint at return format. It mentions 'count or daily growth' but not the structure (e.g., number vs array). It omits the dependency between period and dateRange, which is critical for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the period options indirectly. It does not elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or examples, making it adequate but not valuable.

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 retrieves LinkedIn followers count or daily growth, specifying the resource ('LinkedIn followers') and the action ('Get'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'linkedin_account_stats' and 'linkedin_post_stats' by focusing on followers specifically, though it could be more explicit about the distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., linkedin_account_stats, linkedin_post_stats). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when to choose 'lifetime' vs 'daily' period. The schema includes this guidance, but the description fails to convey it.

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