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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a failure mode the schema cannot express: a possible pinDetected: true that requires human entry in the web app and cannot be completed over MCP. That non-retryable behavior is exactly the kind of context annotations can't carry. It stops short of describing what else the refresh returns or what happens when refresh fails for other reasons.

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 primary action and its scope lead the description, followed by the failure-handling caveat and then the negative boundaries. Every clause carries an actionable fact; there is no filler or restatement of 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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the full decision surface: when to call it, what the notable return field means, what the agent must do instead of retrying, and which sibling to use for the adjacent cases.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already explains linkedAccountId and its source (linkedin_account_list). The description adds operational context around failure handling but no additional meaning about the parameter itself, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Re-establish the browser session for a LinkedIn account after it goes invalid.' It immediately scopes what the tool does and does not touch, and explicitly separates itself from linkedin_account_update, account connection, and restriction clearing.

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 the triggering condition (session invalid) and names the alternatives for adjacent needs: linkedin_account_update for settings, linkedin_account_list/accountRestricted for a LinkedIn-imposed restriction. It also instructs the agent not to retry on a PIN prompt, which is a direct usage constraint.

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