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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds crucial context: the influencer must personally authorize through LinkedIn's sign-in screen, and the link is stable across calls. This goes beyond the structured annotations by explaining the human-in-the-loop requirement and permanence, which an agent needs to set expectations correctly.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and behavioral nuances in the second. No filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the return value is (a URL), how it behaves (stable, requires influencer action), and the required input. An agent can correctly invoke it without missing information.

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 single parameter 'influencer' is fully described in the schema ('Influencer name or influencer id (from create_influencer, list_teams or list_profiles)'), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('personal connect link for a team influencer'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_profiles or create_influencer. No other tool in the sibling list targets connect links, so it is fully differentiated.

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 makes the intended use clear: retrieving the personal connect link for a team influencer. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there are no competing tools for this specific purpose among the siblings. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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