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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Dry-run' discloses that no actual disconnection occurs, and 'showing the capacity that would be lost' describes what the output conveys. It could add failure-mode or prerequisite context, but the core non-destructive trait is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core purpose and the critical call-order directive are both front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter preview tool, the description covers the essential semantics and sequencing. The main gap is the undocumented id parameter, and since there is no output schema, the 'capacity that would be lost' phrasing is the only return-value guidance — adequate but not detailed.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the id parameter, so nothing explains what value to pass (presumably a LinkedIn account ID from list_linkedin_accounts). With coverage this low, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Dry-run of removing a LinkedIn account'. The dry-run phrasing clearly differentiates it from the sibling disconnect_linkedin_account, which performs the actual removal, and the title reinforces this with '(dry-run)'.

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?

Provides an explicit sequencing directive: 'ALWAYS call this first.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, implying it precedes disconnect_linkedin_account. However, it does not name the alternative tool explicitly or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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