linkedin_rank_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool ranks and sorts; it does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether it persists changes, how ranking is computed, what sorting order is used, or how limit is applied. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 and no annotations, the description should clarify what the call returns or changes; it does not. It captures the core sorting semantics and optional nature of parameters, but leaves limit behavior, the icp sort option, and result shape unspecified. This is adequate for a low-complexity sort tool, but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates by explaining three sortBy enum values: 'overall lead score' (score), 'tracking opportunities' (opportunity), and 'intent' (intent). It does not explain 'icp' or the limit parameter, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 ('Ranks and sorts') and resource ('imported lead batches'), and lists the ranking criteria: overall lead score, tracking opportunities, or intent. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like linkedin_filter_leads, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linkedin_filter_leads or linkedin_find_opportunities. The phrase 'imported lead batches' implies it works on prior imports, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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