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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) indicate non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful detail about the link format (white-labeled auth.salesbot.cz) and 2-hour validity, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a purpose: main action, when to use, parameter details. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (link) and usage process. It covers the end-to-end workflow, though missing potential error scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by stating defaults: 'profile_id defaults to active/first profile' and clarifies 'reconnect=true' is for reconnecting blocked/expired accounts. This exceeds baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool generates a secure LinkedIn connect/reconnect link for browser authentication. It specifies the action ('generate a link') and resource ('LinkedIn connect/reconnect link'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_linkedin_status' and 'send_connection_request' by mentioning when to use it.

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 instructs to use the tool when 'get_linkedin_status shows not connected/blocked' or after specific errors. It explains the output is a link the user opens to complete login. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the guidance is clear and contextual.

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