Get LinkedIn Feed

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description mainly adds extra context. It reveals that the feed belongs to the authenticated user, that results are paginated with has_more, and that LinkedIn's public API has limited feed access — useful behavioral nuance beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into Args and Returns sections. The Args block duplicates schema information somewhat, but the Returns block is valuable because there is no output schema, and the note about limited API access is non-redundant.

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 read-only tool with full parameter annotations, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly: parameter meanings, defaults, output format options, a detailed return structure, and a caveat about API limitations. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the embedded JSON return example.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description restates start, count, and response_format with defaults and enums, but does not add meaningfully new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent activity from the authenticated user's LinkedIn feed.' It is clear about what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling linkedin_list_posts, which could overlap conceptually with feed items.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description: reading the authenticated user's feed vs. creating or sending LinkedIn content. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over linkedin_list_posts or other siblings, and no exclusions are stated.

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