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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds context by noting the action happens on the connected account and requires a prior resolution step. It does not disclose side effects or edge cases, but the annotation coverage carries much of the burden and the description is consistent.

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 no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the only added sentence gives an actionable prerequisite. Every word 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?

For a simple action with a fully described schema, the description plus parameter documentation is nearly complete. It covers the necessary resolution step and account context. The only minor omission is explicit guidance about expected outcomes or failure behavior, but that is not critical for this tool.

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%, so the schema itself fully documents both user_id and account_id. The description contributes little beyond the instruction to resolve the provider user_id first, but the schema already provides rich detail on how to obtain it and what to never pass. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Unfollow a LinkedIn user from the connected account.' It clearly distinguishes the action from the sibling follow tool and makes the core operation immediately understandable. The added instruction to resolve the exact provider user_id also sharpens the purpose.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Resolve the exact provider user_id first.' However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linkedin_remove_connection or linkedin_follow_user, nor does it explain under what conditions unfollowing is appropriate. The guidance is useful but incomplete.

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