Send Sales Navigator Message

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only, idempotent-false, and destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: dry_run defaults true, server-side sending must be enabled, already-messaged leads are refused, a 24h cap applies, InMail credits may be spent, and evidence_used must resolve against stored fields. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 tightly structured with a front-loaded purpose and a bulleted list of guardrails. Every bullet conveys a distinct operational constraint, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the tool's side-effecting nature, the description covers all critical operational constraints: dry-run safety, server-side enablement, duplicate prevention, rate limiting, credit risk, and grounding requirements. An output schema exists to cover return values, so no essential guidance is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for several parameters: it explains dry_run behavior and return value, that evidence_used must reference real lead-record fields, and that member_id comes from next_outreach_batch. This goes beyond the schema descriptions without repeating them.

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 opens with 'Send ONE Sales Navigator message. Writes to LinkedIn,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly calling itself the only non-read-only tool here, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting other schemas.

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 clearly states when this tool is appropriate: to send a single Sales Navigator message and to perform the one write action in this toolset. It gives strong context around guarded sending and refusal conditions, though it does not explicitly name an alternative batch-send tool such as run_outreach_batch.

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