linkedin_send_inmail

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

The description discloses that sending InMail requires credits, which is a behavioral constraint. However, with no annotations, it doesn't cover other significant behaviors like the irreversible nature of sending or the availability of the dryRun option (though dryRun is in the schema). It provides minimal context beyond the credit requirement.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

Although the tool is a simple mutating action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a prerequisite. It could be more complete by mentioning the dryRun option or expected outcomes, but it's not severely incomplete.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema with detailed descriptions, so the tool description doesn't need to add parameter-specific semantics. The description adds only high-level context (sending an InMail) without repeating schema details, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action (send), the resource (InMail message), and the target (a lead on LinkedIn Sales Navigator). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search, profile, or save leads by focusing on the sending action.

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 states a clear prerequisite (available InMail credits) which is an important usage condition. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the sibling set contains no other sending tool, making the use case unambiguous.

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