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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false): discloses that the call returns immediately without holding the browser, that nothing is sent during the call, that invites join an invite-only campaign drip during office hours, and the exact rolling 7-day/tier allowance bands, noting this is an internal policy rather than a published LinkedIn limit. It also explains the reply's `plan` field and the adoption-not-reinvite behavior.

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-loads the key semantics — the "now" meaning and the immediate return — before the tier and adoption details. It is on the long side and restates the not-sent-during-call point several ways, which is mild redundancy, but each sentence carries operational value.

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 write tool with no output schema and a 100%-documented schema, the description covers auth/account selection, the queuing semantics, tier-based invite limits, and the `plan` reply field an agent must relay. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the note clamp and bulk profileUrls efficiency. The description reinforces bulk use ("Pass profileUrls for several people in one call") and the tier clamp on notes, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource+scope ("Queue LinkedIn connection invites now to the profiles you name, from one of your accounts") and immediately disambiguates the misleading "now" (queued now, not sent during the call). It also names the sibling it is not (li_ingest_prospects) for the sequence case, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("Use only after the user confirms the exact profiles and notes"), when-not ("No follow-up messages are created — this is invites only"), and the alternative to prefer when a sequence is also wanted (li_ingest_prospects). It also directs to li_list_accounts for account numbers and explains the adoption behavior when someone is later imported.

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