linkedin_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that a visible browser opens, requires credential entry, and 2FA may be prompted — all useful behavioral traits. The session-persistence note is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this replaces any existing session, what happens on failure, or whether credentials are stored or re-entered each time.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the core action. Every sentence contributes value: the first states the action and expectations, the second notes session persistence. Slightly minimal but appropriately concise for a login tool.

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 login tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow well. However, given the large sibling set of LinkedIn tools that depend on this session, it would be useful to explicitly note that this must be run before other tools and whether existing auth state invalidates the need. The session-save note partially covers this but could be more explicit about sequencing and error recovery.

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% and timeout_ms already has a clear description ('How long to wait for login completion (default 5 minutes)'). The tool description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it opens a visible browser for LinkedIn sign-in, completing email/password and 2FA. The verb+resource (open browser, complete sign-in) is specific and distinguishable from siblings like linkedin_auth_status (check auth) and linkedin_logout (end session). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings but the action is clear.

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 implies usage ('Open a visible browser for LinkedIn sign-in') and notes 2FA may be prompted, giving context about what the agent should expect. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives like linkedin_auth_status for checking existing session state. The phrase 'Session is saved for later tools' implies it's a prerequisite step, which is helpful context.

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