send_inmail

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

No annotations provided. Description reveals key behavioral traits: requires Premium, uses InMail credits, targets non-connections. However, it omits details like credit consumption confirmation, rate limits, or asynchronous delivery.

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?

Concise and efficient: 3 sentences plus argument list. Front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite. No redundant content, but could improve structure with bullet points for args.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisite, and basic param descriptions. Missing: output format, error handling (e.g., insufficient credits), rate limits, or message tracking details. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning by naming required parameters and brief explanations. However, attendees_ids format is ambiguous ('LinkedIn provider IDs') and does not clarify expected structure or validation.

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?

Clear verb (send), resource (InMail message), and target audience (non-connections). Distinguishes from sibling tools like send_message and send_invitation by specifying the use case and requirement for LinkedIn Premium.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (messaging 2nd/3rd degree connections without connecting) and advises checking credits via get_inmail_credits() first. Provides clear prerequisite guidance.

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