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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers rich behavioral detail: it creates a NEW account id upstream, past outreach stays tied to the old id, history may appear empty, and running campaigns may need re-pointing. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before invoking.

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 three well-organized sentences: purpose first, then critical side effects, then invocation prerequisite. Every sentence adds necessary information without filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter re-authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, the significant upstream identity change, downstream consequences for history and campaigns, and the approval prerequisite. Nothing essential for deciding whether and how to call it is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'id', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description implies the id identifies the LinkedIn account to reconnect, but it never explicitly states that 'id' is the account id or where to source it. It provides some contextual meaning, but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Re-authenticate a LinkedIn account whose session died.' It clearly distinguishes this from connect_linkedin_account by focusing on session expiration and re-authentication, and from disconnect by describing re-establishment rather than removal.

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 gives a clear condition for use ('whose session died') and an explicit prerequisite: only call after the user reviewed preview_reconnect_linkedin_account and approved. It does not explicitly contrast with connect_linkedin_account or other alternatives, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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