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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, destructive, idempotent and open-world, but the description adds context the annotations cannot convey: the work is performed asynchronously by a server-side browser worker, the call returns immediately with invited/accepted counts, it mutates state by scheduling Day-1 messages, and it depends on the worker being up. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 core action and its side effect are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, async-return behavior, and prerequisites. Four sentences with parentheticals is slightly dense, but each sentence carries information an agent needs and none is filler.

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 what comes back (current invited/accepted counts) and warns that the real results must be read later via li_connections. Prerequisites, async semantics, and side effects are all covered, so an agent can invoke this correctly without further context.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% is vacuous), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no argument is needed and instead names a separate tool for retrieving results, adding no confusion about parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and mechanism: it triggers an acceptance check on the server-side worker, scrapes sent-invites/connections, marks newly-accepted contacts, and auto-schedules Day-1 messages. This is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically-named sibling li_check_acceptance, so an agent cannot confidently route between the two from the description alone.

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 gives an explicit usage scenario ('Use this from a daily cloud routine to drive the post-acceptance flow') plus a prerequisite ('Requires the API/worker to be running') and a follow-up step (re-check li_connections(status="accepted")). There is no when-not guidance and no exclusion relative to li_check_acceptance, which is the main ambiguity.

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