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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/non-openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context: work runs one browser session at a time so 'queued' is normal, the tool is DB/queue-backed and costs no browser time, and inviteHold/notes semantics are explained including LinkedIn's lack of a number. Only return shape for other fields is left implicit.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core picture comes first, then the stuck/idle guidance, then the sibling routing. It runs long as one paragraph, but nearly every clause carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned content (live.summary one-liner, notes, inviteHold) and the cost model. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so both params are documented there; the description still adds useful meaning by stating that omitting the selector returns every visible account, which the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: a live per-account picture of running, queued, and scheduled work plus invite/message counters. It explicitly distinguishes itself from li_list_accounts (configuration), li_daily_digest (day totals), and li_job_result (one job's outcome).

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Read this before telling the user an account is stuck or idle') and names the alternative tools for adjacent questions. It also states the default behavior when no selector is passed and the recovery tool for inviteHold.

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