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

Annotations only declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world; the description goes further by explaining what strengthScore actually measures (share of posts passing the relevance check, explicitly not a signal measure), what creditUsage covers, that credits-per-signal is null when no signal exists, and that target_person rows are legacy. These are real semantic disclosures that annotations cannot carry.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it front-loads the core purpose before the metric definitions, and every clause (metric semantics, cost semantics, sibling routing, compatibility note) carries information an agent needs. The nested parentheticals make it slightly heavy to parse, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not describe return structure, and it instead supplies the interpretive context (metric meaning, credit accounting, legacy rows) plus sibling routing. Safety is covered by annotations and the period semantics by the schema, so the only minor gap is any note on result volume or refresh cadence.

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 100% and the single period enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention that creditUsage always spans the last 7 and 30 days repeats the schema's own note rather than adding new meaning about period.

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 (List) and resource (LinkedIn sources your workspace tracks), then enumerates the subtypes — keyword searches, tracked companies, events, other searches — so the scope is unambiguous. It also names list_monitored_people as the sibling that handles a neighbouring category, which lets an agent separate the two without opening a schema.

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?

It explicitly routes monitored people to list_monitored_people and explains that target_person rows still surface here only for backwards compatibility, which is a genuine when/when-not cue. It does not, however, give guidance on choosing the period window or on how this differs from list_signals/list_intelligence, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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