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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, indicating a state-changing operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the dependency on a prior list call and explicitly forbidding certain parameters, which helps the agent understand the expected preconditions. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful operational details beyond them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the prerequisite and exclusions. There is some redundancy with the schema descriptions (repeating the contract ID source), but it remains efficient and does not waste words. The structure is logical: purpose first, then usage guidance.

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 simple selection tool with only two parameters, the description fully covers what is needed: the action, the prerequisite call, the exact ID source, and explicit exclusions. The account_id parameter is thoroughly explained in the schema, and the description ensures the agent knows not to guess when multiple accounts exist. No essential information is missing.

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% for both parameters, with the contract_id description already repeating the same guidance about obtaining it from linkedin_list_contracts and the account_id description being quite detailed. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so it does not elevate the score beyond the baseline for full coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('LinkedIn Sales Navigator/Recruiter premium contract'), clearly distinguishing the action from list/get operations. It also explicitly instructs to first call linkedin_list_contracts and reuse the exact contract.id, which clarifies the intended workflow. This differentiates it from any potential sibling selection tool and makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by requiring a prerequisite call to linkedin_list_contracts and mandating the reuse of the exact contract.id. It also gives clear exclusions ('Do not pass product name or inbox_id'), preventing common misuse. This is comprehensive usage direction beyond what the schema alone provides.

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