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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: events are pushed, ordered newest first, and empty means no events have arrived rather than no leads exist. The read-only claim is consistent with the annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences cover the core purpose, the empty-result semantics, and the relevant sibling tools. Every sentence adds information without redundancy or 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?

The description covers purpose, ordering, empty semantics, and related tools, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or describe the exact event payload structure, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning, but it never mentions the 'limit' parameter or how it affects results. The single parameter is left entirely to the schema's bare name and type.

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: it lists lead events that LinkedIn pushed to Hermoso for the brand, including new/deleted leads with form and lead ID, newest first. It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools like list_linkedin_leads, subscribe_linkedin_leads, and get_linkedin_lead.

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 explicit context for when this tool is appropriate: it reads pushed events only, and it clarifies that empty results mean no events arrived, not that no leads exist. It also names alternatives for related needs: list_linkedin_leads for all leads, subscribe_linkedin_leads to start delivery, and get_linkedin_lead to read answers.

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