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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavioral facts the annotations miss: outbound actions are not executed directly but returned as cards requiring user approval, and the agent must relay each card word for word. It also discloses the two possible response shapes (a free-form answer vs a card), which is exactly the transparency needed for this approval-gated design.

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 purpose, followed by usage scope and then the operational constraint about cards. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information 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 must explain return behavior; it does by describing both the textual answer and the approval card, and by specifying the follow-up action (decide_card, verbatim relay). Nothing an agent needs to call and handle this tool correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'message' parameter is documented as 'What the user said, in their words.' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

States a specific action (say something to the agent) and resource (the agent that runs the user's LinkedIn) and defines the scope broadly as 'anything the user wants done or wants to know about their LinkedIn.' This clearly distinguishes it from the dozens of narrow CRUD siblings like who_is_waiting_on_me and get_brief, which this tool subsumes as a natural-language entry point.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('anything the user wants done or wants to know') with concrete examples, and routes card handling to decide_card with an explicit instruction to relay verbatim and ask the user. It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer the specialized siblings over this general interface, so it does not reach the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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