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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that this returns a 'ready-to-use LinkedIn search URL' rather than executing a search. The build-and-return framing makes the pure, side-effect-free nature clear without contradicting the annotations.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose, then describe inputs, output, and surrounding workflow. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 pure URL-builder with safe annotations, the description explains the key pipeline context: where criteria come from, what is returned, and how to use the result. It is missing minor details like whether criteria are AND/OR combined and that all parameters are optional, but the schema and sibling workflow cover much of that.

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%, so the description carries the parameter documentation burden. It does list all six ICP field groups ('titles, industries, locations, seniorities, company sizes, and keywords'), but it adds no formatting or semantics beyond the schema's property names, such as the structure of the location objects or constraints.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Build a LinkedIn People search URL from ICP criteria', then enumerates the input fields and the output. This clearly separates it from search, import, and creation siblings like campaignstack_search_leads and campaignstack_queue_leads.

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 gives an explicit workflow: call campaignstack_list_icps to fetch ICP criteria, pass them here, then feed the URL to campaignstack_queue_leads. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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