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

Annotations only cover the read-only/safe profile; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the report lives 24h, withdrawals run in background, the job deletes itself, this reads a stored report with no browser and is instant. It also disambiguates null vs ok:false semantics, which is exactly the kind of disclosure 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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the routing rule, then the failure semantics — a logical order. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause carries distinct, non-redundant information, so little is wasted.

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With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so: it explains the report contents (who was withdrawn, what was scanned, cap status) and the two degenerate return cases (report: null, ok: false). Nothing needed to interpret the result correctly 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%, and the schema already documents both sessionId and sessionLabel including the 'omit to use your default account' behavior. The description's 'Defaults to your default account' largely restates the schema, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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+resource: a report of the most recent li_withdraw_invites run, scoped to one account and kept 24h. It explicitly differentiates itself from li_job_result and points to li_list_accounts for the daily automatic sweep, so an agent can distinguish it from every plausible sibling.

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 an explicit when-to-use: 'this — not li_job_result — is how you confirm one finished,' with the reason (the withdrawal job deletes itself). It also names the alternative path for the daily sweep (li_list_accounts autoWithdraw.lastRun), so both the primary and alternate routes are covered.

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