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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that human interaction is required, that this tool cannot finish the OAuth flow alone, and that no account exists until the user completes the flow. This is essential behavioral context beyond the simple 'returns a URL' summary.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core behavior, then add the critical human-in-the-loop caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, what the agent should do with it, and the key state limitation (no account until flow completion). Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents campaign_id with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat it. However, the description adds no additional meaning about how the optional campaign binding behaves or what happens when it is omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action (returns a hosted authorization URL) and a specific resource (LinkedIn account), clearly distinguishing it from reconnect_linkedin_account and disconnect_linkedin_account. It is explicit that this tool only produces a link and does not complete the connection.

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 operational guidance: the URL must be opened by a human and the agent must give it to the user, since the tool cannot complete the connection itself. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as reconnect_linkedin_account, but the context makes the usage scenario sufficiently clear.

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