linkedin_get_recent_activity

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the output is normalized and date-filtered, and 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination, default behavior when from/to are omitted, or what normalized items actually contain.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and filtering scope are front-loaded. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity getter, the core retrieval semantics are present, but with no output schema the description doesn't document return shape, and with many sibling analysis tools it doesn't say when this raw-retrieval tool is preferred. These gaps keep it at adequate rather than 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 input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'over a specified date range.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not elevate 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 identifies the operation as retrieval and the resource as normalized activity items, scoped to a date range. It is not a tautology and echoes the name, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like linkedin_analyze_recent_activity or linkedin_build_activity_timeline.

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 guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings such as linkedin_analyze_recent_activity or linkedin_build_activity_timeline. The description implies a data-retrieval use case but states no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions.

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