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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses real behavioral consequences: it clears invitation references before deletion, permanently removes only the Reach-side record while leaving LinkedIn untouched, and is irreversible. The confirmation requirement is also a meaningful operational constraint not captured by the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the side effect, then the exclusions and safety requirement. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information and nothing is padded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations already cover safety/idempotency hints. The description supplies the remaining critical context - Reach-only scope, irreversible destruction, invitation-reference cleanup, confirmation requirement, and the temporary-disconnect exclusion - so 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself thoroughly documents account_id and idempotency_key, so the baseline score is 3. The description only repeats 'by account_id' and adds no format, source, or idempotency-key guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a LinkedIn account') and immediately bounds it with 'Removes the account from Reach only (LinkedIn is untouched).' This scope distinction, plus the explicit 'Not for disconnecting temporarily,' lets an agent separate this from read/list siblings like list_accounts and from any temporary-disconnect behavior without opening the 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?

It gives a clear negative condition ('Not for disconnecting temporarily') and a prerequisite ('requires the user's explicit confirmation'), which tells the agent when not to call it and what must happen first. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool, but no sibling tool fills that role, so the guidance is clear without an explicit routing target.

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