Invite connections to follow

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only, but the description adds valuable runtime behavior: the tool sends up to max_invites, stops when the quota is reached, and handles the LinkedIn error banner gracefully. This is beyond annotation metadata and informs the agent of expected side effects and termination conditions.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and then succinctly state the quota constraint and stopping behavior. Every sentence carries critical information with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose, quota, and failure behavior. It lacks details on partial failures for individual invites, but the output schema likely addresses that. Overall, it is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the default for max_invites. The tool description reinforces this but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already presents, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Send follow invitations') and clearly identifies the target ('your 1st-degree connections'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on reading, posting, or admin management, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

Description explains the LinkedIn 250-invite monthly cap and the max_invites hard cap, giving clear context for when to use this tool and cautioning about quota limitations. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools provide the same functionality.

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