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

Goes well beyond the annotations: exact credit cost by brief level (1/3, free on Free), who is billed, activity-feed attribution of the agent, explicit 'no email is sent' note, the return payload contents, and a full enumeration of refusal codes with side effects ('nothing charged', 'can be tried again'). It also flags untrusted viewer-supplied content, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information — purpose, id sourcing, cost, billing, no-email, return shape, refusals, trust warning — with purpose front-loaded. It is delivered as one dense paragraph rather than being broken into scannable segments, which costs a point.

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 no output schema, the description compensates fully by describing the return value (visit with brief, creditsCharged, creditsRemaining) and covering costs, billing, refusals, and safety-relevant trust caveats. An agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by stating where valid visitBriefId values come from (recentVisits rows sourced via get_share_stats/get_project_stats with includeVisits). The status constraint itself is duplicated from the schema description.

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 ('Writes the AI brief for one visit') and narrows scope precisely to 'one visit that ended without one'. It also anchors the operation to a concrete in-app equivalent ('the same as Write the brief on a reader's page'), so the agent knows exactly what action is being taken.

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 a clear precondition (visit whose status is recap or failed) and tells the agent exactly where to obtain the required id (lnkdrp_get_share_stats or lnkdrp_get_project_stats with includeVisits). It never frames an explicit when-not or names an alternative sibling, but no sibling performs this action, so the practical guidance is strong.

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