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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them while adding real context the annotations cannot: the breaker's trigger condition (3 consecutive invites to different people failing the same way), which invite paths it suppresses and which it does not (messages keep going), the auto-expiry rules, the re-hold risk, and the return contract. No contradiction with structured data.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by trigger mechanics, lifting rules, the safety precondition, and the return value. It is dense and multi-clause, but each sentence carries distinct operational information; only the 'says so in inviteHold on...' reference to sibling tools is slightly tangential.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description closes that gap by stating the return value ('Returns the hold that was standing (null = there was none)'). Combined with the trigger, expiry, and precondition detail, an agent has everything needed to invoke this safely and 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (sessionId, sessionLabel) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no identifier syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and object ('Lift the INVITE BREAKER's hold on one account') and immediately distinguishes it from state-of-the-world readers like li_campaign_status by naming those as the places the hold is reported, not cleared. An agent can tell this apart from siblings such as li_hold_sending or li_pause_account.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not: self-lifting holds (LinkedIn email-request holds clear after a day) versus holds that wait for this call (SELECTOR_CHANGED, UNKNOWN, NOTE_LIMIT). It also prescribes a precondition ('Clear it only after someone has looked: open the account on LinkedIn and try one invite by hand, or read the saved screenshot') and names the consequence of misuse ('If the cause is still there, the next 3 failures hold it again').

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