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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, error conditions, or side effects) beyond stating it lists chats. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives the critical usage direction and the source of the required parameter. 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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 7 parameters, but the description does not mention pagination, filtering, or any output format (no output schema exists). It only covers the inbox source and the preference over generic listing. For an agent to call it correctly, it would need to understand the optional params like cursor, limit, and is_unread, which are undocumented in the schema and not explained in the description. The description is incomplete for this level of complexity.

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 only 29% (only inbox_id and account_id have descriptions; the other 5 params—after, limit, before, cursor, is_unread—have none). The description does not compensate by explaining any parameter semantics. Since the coverage is low, the description should have provided meaning for at least the key parameters, but it is silent on all of them.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'List chats from a specific LinkedIn inbox.' It also differentiates from generic chat listing by specifying the scope: 'for LinkedIn V2 and premium Sales Navigator/Recruiter inboxes.' This distinguishes it from siblings like linkedin_list_conversations or messaging_list_chats without needing to open their schemas.

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?

It explicitly instructs to prefer this tool over generic chat listing for specific inbox types, and tells the user how to obtain the required inbox_id: 'Get inbox_id from linkedin_list_inboxes.' This gives clear context for when to use it and how to source the key parameter, leaving no inference required.

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