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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses that the tool is non-mutating ("without doing anything") and names the concrete downstream risk of the real operation — the upstream account id changes and existing outreach history can be orphaned. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs. It stops short of describing the preview's return shape or how the side-effects are surfaced.

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 sentences, no filler: the dry-run nature is front-loaded and the mandatory-call rule plus its rationale follow immediately. Every clause 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it is safe, when it must be called, and the risk it guards against. The only real gap is that it never says what the preview actually returns or which id to pass.

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% for the single required parameter "id", and the description never mentions it, so the agent gets no help distinguishing whether this is the LinkedIn account id, a workspace id, or an outreach id. The context (a LinkedIn account tool) makes the plausible reading inferable, but it is not stated.

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 re-authenticating a LinkedIn account") and the word "dry-run" immediately separates it from the sibling reconnect_linkedin_account, which actually performs the mutation. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

"ALWAYS call this first" is an explicit, unconditional ordering instruction, and the reason (upstream account-id change, orphaned outreach history) tells the agent exactly why the preview is mandatory before the real reconnect. No inference required.

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