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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the side effect (stores what it establishes), the queueing/browser-session behavior, and the critical 'a wait timeout means it is still running, not that it failed.' It also disambiguates nulls in `facts` (page did not say) and `wrote: null` (nothing established, account untouched).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then timing, then return-value semantics. Every clause earns its place, though the first sentence is long and dense enough to slow parsing slightly.

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 still explains the return shape (`facts` vs `wrote` and their null meanings), the async execution model, and the alternative data source. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so sessionId and sessionLabel are already documented (including the 'never guessed' constraint). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond referencing li_list_accounts as the id source, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ('Read one account's LinkedIn tier now') and enumerates the possible outcomes (verified / premium / new-unverified). It also explains the consequence of the value (invitation allowance and whether notes are delivered), and names li_list_accounts as where the stored value lives, which separates it from the read-only siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: the tier is re-detected daily and the stored value is in li_list_accounts, so 'call this only when you cannot wait for that tick.' It also pre-empts a search for a write alternative with 'There is no manual tier setter by design.'

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