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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the result is a URL requiring human action and what to do next, but omits whether the link expires, whether calling it is idempotent, and whether it performs any mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return value, no filler. Everything present is actionable.

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 the description covers the return value and the human-in-the-loop step, but leaves search_id undefined and gives no guidance on link lifetime or failure modes.

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?

The single parameter search_id has 0% schema coverage and the description never explains it — 'this SDR's outreach' is the only hint. Worse, it names selected_linkedin_account_ids, which is not a parameter of this tool, potentially confusing the agent about the input shape.

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 — returns a hosted LinkedIn connect link scoped to a given SDR/outreach. It's meaningfully distinct from the plain connect_linkedin_account sibling because it emphasizes a hosted, human-opened link, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'A human must open it; then pick the account in selected_linkedin_account_ids' gives the follow-up workflow, which implies when this tool fits. But there is no explicit contrast with connect_linkedin_account or reconnect_linkedin_account, leaving the agent to infer which connect route to take.

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