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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: cross-workspace watchers are redacted to isSameWorkspace false with no details, and the owner workspace is the one that pays for watchers and inbox sends. This is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent needs to know.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a structured inventory of returned fields. It is a bit dense and the owner clause is convoluted, but there is no filler and the closing sentence adds useful navigational guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the main returned categories and the important cross-workspace visibility rule. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it leaves workspaceId semantics underspecified and does not describe the exact response shape.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining both parameters. It indirectly references linkedinAccountId via 'for a LinkedIn account' and 'use campaignstack_list_accounts to find account IDs,' but it never names workspaceId, never states that linkedinAccountId is required, and does not explain how workspaceId affects the result. This is a meaningful 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: it reads per-account housekeeping state for a LinkedIn account. It enumerates the specific state groups returned (invitation hygiene, connection watcher, message watcher, owner) and distinguishes itself from related siblings by pointing to campaignstack_list_accounts and campaignstack_set_account_watcher.

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 concrete guidance on how to find account IDs (campaignstack_list_accounts) and how to change a watcher (campaignstack_set_account_watcher), which helps an agent select the right sibling. It implies when to use this tool by defining it as the read of maintenance state, but it does not explicitly contrast it with other get_* tools or state when workspaceId should be supplied.

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