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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose key traits: read-only (no sending) and free (no cost), which is valuable. It doesn't disclose auth requirements, output format, or whether the preview reflects current agent config.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the key safety/cost constraints. Zero waste.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and the single parameter is undocumented. The description covers purpose and two key behaviors but leaves the parameter meaning and return content to inference, which is incomplete for an agent needing to call it.

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% with one required parameter 'id'. The description says nothing about what 'id' refers to—an agent id, a lead id, a connection id? This is a significant gap since the schema gives no clues.

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 (render a sample) and resource (LinkedIn connection request) from this agent. It's distinguishable from siblings like preview_agent_email or preview_linkedin_followup by naming the channel and message type. Slightly terse but clear.

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 phrase 'No sending, no cost' implies when/why to use it (to preview safely before committing), but it doesn't explicitly frame alternatives or prerequisites beyond that. Adequate implied guidance.

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