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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and free, and it clarifies the scope as workspace-level accounts. It does not describe auth requirements, return format, or pagination, but for a zero-parameter list operation the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 short sentences, each adding value: the action, a practical use case, and the safety/cost note. The description is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains 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 simple zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers scope, use case, and behavioral traits. It does not detail the exact fields returned by the account list, but that is a minor gap given the operation's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter documentation needed, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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: list LinkedIn accounts connected to the workspace as shown in the CRM. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_linkedin_accounts', relying on the 'crm_' prefix and 'as shown in the CRM' phrasing to imply the distinction.

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 offers a concrete use case—'useful to see which account owns a conversation'—which implies when an agent should call it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to similar tools like list_linkedin_accounts, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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