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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the live check queues behind other browser work, returns a `liveCheck` field, and the false path is instant and DB-only. It also discloses a security boundary (never exposes li_at/JSESSIONID cookies or storage state).

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 listing behavior, then the mode tradeoff, then routing, then the security note. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical field list and multiple sibling callouts make it dense.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the returned field (`liveCheck`) and describes latency/queueing behavior, plus alternatives and the security boundary. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: it explains that verifyLive=true performs a browser sign-in check that queues and returns `liveCheck`, while false is DB-only, and it clarifies the default-account fallback for sessionId/sessionLabel.

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 ('List your saved LinkedIn sessions') and enumerates the returned fields (label, status, account tier, warm-up state), then describes the conditional verifyLive behavior. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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 to alternatives with conditions: li_list_accounts for full config, li_account_activity for current activity, li_verify_account to confirm a reconnect. It also states when to use each mode (verifyLive=true vs false) and the tradeoff between them.

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