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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds that the request is sent from the user's own account and that a note should only be included when explicitly requested, but does not disclose consequences such as duplicate invitations, rate limits, or errors when already connected.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the key ID requirement is stated immediately, and the note policy is a concise final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description plus schema covers the essential preconditions, ID resolution workflow, and optional account disambiguation. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but given no output schema and the presence of destructive/idempotent annotations, the missing information is not critical for invoking the tool 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 67%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that user_id must be a provider ID, not a URL, and constrains the 'message' parameter by saying a note should only be included when explicitly requested or clearly provided. account_id is already well documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('LinkedIn connection/relation request'), and clarifies it acts from the user's own account. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_accept_invitation or linkedin_send_message.

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 states the required input form ('provider user_id, not a profile URL') and gives a direct pre-call workflow: if only a URL/name is available, first call linkedin_get_profile or linkedin_search_people. It does not explicitly name alternatives like linkedin_send_message for already-connected users, but the context is fairly clear.

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