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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the invitation is always empty (no text), and daily/hourly limits, allowed hours, blacklist, random delays, and human approval are enforced. This adds significant context about side effects and constraints that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not cover.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the parameter preference, and the key behavioral constraints. No filler or repetition. Information is front-loaded with the action.

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 send action with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (empty invitation, limits, approval). It does not mention return values or error handling, but those are less critical given the simplicity and the annotations already indicating side effects. It is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 descriptions are generic. The tool description adds value by clarifying the relationship between contact_id and linkedin_id: contact_id is preferred and Salesbot resolves the LinkedIn identifier internally. This tells the agent which parameter to prioritize and how the fallback works, which is not in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Send a LinkedIn connection invitation.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_linkedin_message (message) and publish_linkedin_post (post). The resource is unambiguous and the action is precise.

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?

It gives a clear directive to prefer contact_id and explains that Salesbot resolves the LinkedIn identifier internally, which guides parameter selection. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the purpose is self-evident from the name and the context of siblings.

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