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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces the safety profile with 'Returns the text only — it is not saved, queued or sent', which is more specific than the annotation about side effects. It also discloses that output is generated in the user's own voice and offer. It doesn't discuss rate limits or length constraints, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the critical non-persistence caveat, then the parameter semantics. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 simple 3-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output nature ('text only'), safety behavior and both non-obvious parameters. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three parameters: it enumerates 'kind' values ('connection_note' or 'first_message') and explains that 'instructions' steers the angle. The 'lead' parameter is left implicit, which is a minor gap given its self-evident meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (write/draft) and resource (LinkedIn connection note or first message) plus the target (one of the user's leads). It is easily distinguished from the read-only siblings (get_inbox, list_leads, get_profile) without opening any schema.

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 establishes when this tool applies (you have a lead and want an outreach draft) and disambiguates the two modes via 'kind'. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but no sibling competes for this job.

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