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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the credit model: what fields come back, that a grant applies per reset, and that resets_on is ISO 8601 UTC. It does not describe error shapes or what a zero-credit response looks like, which is a modest gap for a quota-checking tool.

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-loaded with the resource and return fields, then usage, then prerequisite — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The colon-separated field list makes the first sentence dense, but every element carries information.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, temporal format, prerequisite resolution path, and call timing. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly on the first try.

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 schema already states that company_id must be numeric, sourced from linkedin_list_managed_company_pages, and never a name/URL/slug/URN. The description's restatement adds little beyond that baseline; account_id is not mentioned at all in the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — reading remaining credits for company-follow invitations on an administered page — and implicitly separates itself from linkedin_get_inmail_credits by naming the exact credit type. An agent can tell what it returns (remaining_credit, credit_grant, resets_on) without opening the 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: call before linkedin_send_company_follow_invitation or after a credit-limit error. The prerequisite is also spelled out (an administered page's numeric company ID, obtainable via linkedin_list_managed_company_pages), leaving nothing to inference.

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