accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the 'Changes nothing' aspect, so the description adds no new behavioral disclosure beyond that. It does not mention rate limits, response size, or other side effects, but for a simple list operation the annotation suffices.

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?

The description is two short sentences plus a minimal Args block. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place, with no redundant words.

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 tool is very simple (one optional parameter, no required fields) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The combination of the purpose statement, the Args hint, and the annotations fully equips an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema provides only a title and default for the action parameter, with zero description. The description compensates by specifying action="list" and clarifying that other account actions belong to the account tool, giving the agent enough context to invoke it correctly. It doesn't explicitly state the parameter is optional, but the schema default covers that.

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 clear verb+resource: 'List the LinkedIn accounts connected to this HeyLead.' It immediately clarifies the tool's scope and read-only nature with 'Changes nothing.' This distinguishes it from the singular 'account' sibling by pointing out that account management actions belong elsewhere.

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 names the alternative tool 'account' for switching, unlinking, and connecting email, telling the agent when not to use this tool. The instruction in the Args block reinforces that only the 'list' action is intended here, leaving no ambiguity about which operations belong to this tool.

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