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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly says “Read-only,” explains that “ok” means the account can send, and gives a concrete sending capacity of ~70–80 invites/day per account. It does not cover authentication requirements or error behavior, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 front-loaded with the resource and status meaning, then efficiently enumerates the detailed-mode additions in one sentence. The final “Read-only” sentence is short and earns its place by stating a critical behavioral trait.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the returned { role, accounts } shape and the additional fields when detailed=true. It also discloses read-only behavior. Minor gaps like default value of detailed and sibling-tool selection remain, but an agent has enough context 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the sole optional boolean parameter. It does so thoroughly: detailed=true adds owner/role, campaigns and SDR searches using each account, 7-day activity, prospecting caps, warm-up stage, premium tier, and proxy country, and role is filled only with detailed=true.

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: listing LinkedIn accounts of the workspace and their status. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as crm_list_linkedin_accounts or list_campaign_linkedin_accounts.

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 explains what the detailed flag returns, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_list_linkedin_accounts, list_campaign_linkedin_accounts, or get_linkedin_account_settings. Usage is only implied by the resource name and status semantics.

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