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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description goes beyond them with a genuinely useful cost model: no credits now, 30 credits for the scheduled scan, 5 for a lead email lookup. That is exactly the kind of downstream consequence annotations cannot express. Minor tension: 'add or update' reads as an upsert while idempotentHint=false is not reconciled.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and required argument, then cost. No filler, though the two separate credit sentences could be compressed into one and the 'lead email lookup' cost is only loosely tied to this tool's own behavior.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost but omits the essentials an agent still needs: what the call returns, what happens when the URL already exists (add vs. update semantics), the untouched 'name' parameter, and whether a lead lookup is triggered here or elsewhere.

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 67% (profile_url and tracking_enabled are documented in the schema itself), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the required argument and the tracking_enabled default rather than adding format or behavior detail, and it is silent on the 'name' parameter, which is undocumented in both places.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb pair and resource ('Add or update a tracked LinkedIn profile'), and the required argument is stated immediately. It implicitly separates itself from the read-side sibling get_linkedin_profiles, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Pass profile_url. Optional tracking_enabled, default true.' gives call-shape guidance, and the credit note hints at cost trade-offs, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_linkedin_profiles / list_linkedin_leads, nor any exclusion or prerequisite (auth, existing-profile conflicts).

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