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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description adds non-obvious behavior by telling the agent this kicks off a runner job (async, not a synchronous result) and that it has no outreach side effect. It stops short of stating whether the job can be polled, retried, or what account permission it needs.

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, with the core action and result front-loaded and the negative scope statement placed at the end for immediate disambiguation. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the async-job framing helps. However, with five parameters at 20% documentation coverage and no mention of job lifecycle, permissions, or how the resulting list is identified, the description leaves real gaps for a mutating, async tool.

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 only 20% (workspaceId alone is documented), yet the description names no parameters at all. The meanings of listName, keepUpToDate, and maxConnections are left entirely to bare schema types, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (export), the exact resource (an account's first-degree LinkedIn connections), and the output artifact (a lead list), plus the async mechanism (runner job). The closing clause explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling send_connection_request.

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 'does not send connection requests' clause weakly implies when this is the right tool versus outreach siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-selection guidance. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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