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

The annotations only indicate false read-only/idempotent/destructive hints, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: the job runs asynchronously in the background, imports connections into the shared leads database, and makes leads available for campaigns. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-organized: the core action is front-loaded, followed by monitoring advice, downstream effects, and a prerequisite lookup step. Every sentence contributes useful guidance with 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the caller can expect in return. It explains how to monitor progress but does not mention whether the tool returns a job ID or how the agent should connect the result to campaignstack_get_automation_jobs. The overall workflow is covered, but the immediate return value is unspecified.

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 33%, with only maxConnections documented. The description partially compensates by explaining that accountId refers to a LinkedIn account and pointing to campaignstack_list_accounts, but workspaceId is left unexplained and maxConnections is not addressed in the description. More parameter guidance would be needed for full clarity.

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 action ('Start an async runner job'), a specific resource ('1st-degree LinkedIn connections'), and the output ('as leads'). It also clearly scopes the operation to a given account, making it easy for an agent to distinguish from the many import/export sibling tools.

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 clear context: this tool starts a background export/import job, and it points to campaignstack_get_automation_jobs for monitoring and campaignstack_list_accounts for finding valid accountId values. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as CSV or Apollo imports.

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