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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. On top of that the description adds two things the annotations cannot: that work is asynchronous (credits are consumed 'when workers complete rows') and that queue capacity is a bounded, shared resource. This is real added behavioral value; only the mechanism for tracking completion is left implicit.

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, front-loaded with the action and hard cap, then priority semantics, then the cost caveat. Every sentence carries information; the middle sentence is slightly loose but not padded.

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 shapes need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the two gaps an agent most needs for a queued, credit-consuming job: the batch limit and the async cost implication. What is missing is any pointer to how to observe completion, which for this tool family is presumably get_lead_refresh_status.

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%, so the description must carry more weight. It does explain priority semantics well, but the required results array and its nested profile fields (and the role of accountId/campaignId) receive no explanation beyond 'LinkedIn lead profiles', leaving optional-vs-required field intent and the campaignId targeting ambiguous.

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 specific verb and resource: queueing LinkedIn lead profiles for fresh enrichment, with the 50-item batch bound. It is distinguishable from enrich_leads and get_lead_refresh_status by framing this as queue submission rather than direct enrichment or status polling. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 explains the priority choice (normal vs high) and warns that queue capacity and enrichment credits may be consumed, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over campaignstack_enrich_leads, campaignstack_refresh_companies, or campaignstack_get_lead_refresh_status, so the agent must infer the routing.

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