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 the human-in-the-loop requirement (a person must open a browser), that the tool cannot finish the connection, and that no account exists until the flow completes. It omits link expiry or permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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, each earning its place, with the core behavior (returns a URL a human must open) front-loaded. No filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is essentially complete: it explains the return (a hosted URL) and the required follow-up action. It could note what happens after authorisation (e.g. where the account surfaces), but nothing needed to invoke it 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 single optional campaign_id is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail about that parameter, but it doesn't need to given the schema does the work.

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: it returns a hosted URL to authorise a LinkedIn account, and clarifies why it cannot act on its own. It distinguishes itself implicitly from reconnect-style siblings by stressing that no account exists yet, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 clear workflow guidance ('give the link to the user', 'cannot complete the connection itself') but never states when to choose it over reconnect_linkedin_account, disconnect_linkedin_account, or list_linkedin_accounts. Usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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