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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing an API limitation (Sales Navigator/Recruiter seat flags exist on the record but are not exposed by this endpoint), the consequence of ignoring validation state ("will launch but never send"), and why the flags matter for INMAILS and `/sales/` or `/talent/` sources.

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?

Front-loads the resource and the routing rule before the caveats, and most sentences carry distinct operational value. It is on the long side — the seat-flag explanation and the "no tool at all" note overlap somewhat with the adjacent alternative-tool sentence and could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the fields to inspect in the response and explicitly calling out what is absent from the output. Combined with the mutation-path guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 coverage is 100% and the `userId` and `status` parameters are already documented in detail in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It adds nothing about `status`, `userId`, or `keyword` semantics itself, but the baseline of 3 applies when 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?

Identifies the resource precisely (LinkedIn accounts connected to this account) and explicitly scopes the operation: "This lists; it does not connect." It also names the siblings it is not — `campaign_update` for attaching, `linkedin_account_update` for limits — so an agent can route 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use rules (one account per campaign; ask the user if there are several), a pre-assignment checklist (`isValid`, `isPaused`, `accountRestricted`, `weeklyLimitReached`), and named alternatives for the operations this tool does not perform, including noting that account creation has no tool at all.

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