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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the confidentiality guarantee about internal account/browser/install/task/event ids, the content of the payload (profiles, sender profiles, browser readiness, UTC activity, action limits), and the one-account edge case that lets createOutreachEnrollment omit linkedinAccountProfileUrl.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the enumeration of payload contents and the edge case. The opening clause duplicates the title verbatim, which is mild waste, but every remaining sentence carries operational information.

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 enumerated, yet the description still summarizes the relevant fields and adds a cross-tool caveat plus an id-exposure guarantee. Combined with the nested query object and 0% schema description coverage signal, this is close to complete; only explicit negative guidance about when not to call it 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?

The single query parameter is nested, and the description explains the joint semantics that the schema alone only implies: idType and id must be used together, the match is exact, and cardinality is zero-or-one. That meaningfully constrains invocation beyond the field-level descriptions, though it does not cover the maxLength or enum-value trade-offs an agent might want.

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 opens with a specific verb pair plus resource ("List or look up connected LinkedIn accounts") and then explains both modes: a full workspace listing and an exact single-identity lookup via idType+id. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like updateLinkedInAccount or listOutreachEnrollments 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 makes the mode selection clear: omit the query object to list, or supply idType and id together for an exact public identity lookup returning zero or one account. It also flags the relevant hand-off to createOutreachEnrollment for single-account workspaces, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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