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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose a critical behavioral fact that nothing else states at the tool level: 10 credits per call. It stops there, saying nothing about auth requirements, result limits, or result shape. The cache-vs-live tradeoff is documented, but only inside the schema's refresh property rather than in the description.

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, zero padding, purpose first and the cost constraint surfaced immediately rather than buried. Each sentence contributes something an agent would act on.

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?

Adequate for a 3-optional-parameter search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, but thin given zero annotation coverage: no statement of what results contain, whether results are paginated or capped, or how company/keywords interact when both are supplied.

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 100%, including the important nuance that refresh=false returns cached results free while refresh=true re-runs live at cost. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the schema does all the work — 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 ('Search the LinkedIn ad library') plus a concrete use case (competitor ad creative and messaging). What's missing is differentiation from the many related lookup siblings (linkedin_company_posts, linkedin_post_search, linkedin_company_search), so an agent can't tell from the description alone why it would pick this over those.

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?

'Useful for tracking competitor ad creative and messaging' implies the scenario but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and names no alternatives. With dozens of LinkedIn search siblings available, a routing sentence would have real value here.

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