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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. Beyond that, the description adds a specific behavioral detail not captured by annotations: 'Also clears invitation references before deletion.' This provides extra context about what gets cleaned up, which is valuable for an agent reasoning about side effects.

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 description is two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the notable side effect. There is no redundancy or wasted wording, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, comprehensive parameter descriptions, and informative annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the primary action and the key side effect; the permanent destructive nature is implied by destructiveHint. No additional context is necessary for safe use.

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 both parameters (account_id and idempotency_key) are already well documented in the input schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for tools where the schema carries the descriptive load.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a LinkedIn account by account_id.' It also mentions a secondary behavior (clearing invitation references), which distinguishes it from other deletion tools like delete_conversation or remove_connection. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

The description gives clear context that this tool deletes a LinkedIn account, so an agent knows when to use it for full account removal. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for deleting a conversation, use delete_conversation instead'). The guidance is implied but not stated, and with many sibling deletion tools, a brief note on differentiation would improve selection accuracy.

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