LinkedIn lead events received in real time

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses that data arrives via push rather than being a full store, that an empty response has a specific meaning, and that the call is free. These are exactly the nuances that prevent an agent from misreading an empty list as 'no leads exist'.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the empty-result caveat, then the sibling routing. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys the shape of returned events (type, form, lead id) and their ordering, plus the delivery model and cost. An agent has everything needed to call and correctly interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `limit` parameter already documents default 50 and max 200. The description only restates ordering ('newest first'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (lead events pushed to Hermoso for this brand), enumerates the event types (new lead / deleted lead) and the payload fields (form and lead id), and fixes ordering (newest first). This is clearly distinguishable from list_linkedin_leads and get_linkedin_lead, which are named in the same breath.

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 routes the agent: use list_linkedin_leads to read every lead regardless of push delivery, use subscribe_linkedin_leads to start delivery, and use get_linkedin_lead to read a lead's answers. It also gives the crucial when-not interpretation — an empty result means none have arrived yet, not that no leads exist.

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