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

Annotations establish the non-read-only, non-destructive, non-openWorld profile. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: the link is one-time, a user must click and approve externally, and the resulting token is stored encrypted. It stops short of stating idempotency/link expiry, which would round it out.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary effect (generating the link) front-loaded and the consequence (approval flowing into encrypted token storage) second. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the essential context an agent needs: the tool produces an authorization URL and hands control to the user. It could note what happens on re-invocation, but nothing critical 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to document. The 100% schema coverage is vacuous but the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 verb (generates an authorization link) and resource (LinkedIn ad account), plus the end outcome (token stored). It is clearly distinguishable from the large connect_* family and from list_linkedin_ad_accounts, which require an already-connected account.

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 implies usage by describing the flow but never states when to call it (e.g., before any LinkedIn Ads operation) or what to do if the account is already connected. With ~15 connect_* siblings, explicit routing guidance would have been valuable.

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