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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the tool needs an assigned LinkedIn connection but no account ID, and it returns a fixed set of account fields. It stops short of mentioning pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no connection exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the workspace note is separated onto its own line. The middle sentence is long and runs several ideas together (account-ID purpose, portal form field, unsupported sibling), costing a bit of scannability but no sentence is 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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: the prerequisite connection, the absence of a required account ID, and the downstream use of the returned ID. Return-value details are already covered by the output schema, so nothing material 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter, and it does: 'workspace: Slug des Kunden-Workspace (optional bei nur einem Workspace)' explains both format and the optionality condition that the schema only expresses as a null default. It adds genuine meaning rather than repeating the schema.

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 ('Erreichbare LinkedIn-Ad-Accounts der Verbindung auflisten') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, status, type, currency). It also distinguishes itself from workspace_configure_source, which explicitly does not support linkedin_ads, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the concrete purpose ('um die richtige Account-ID zu finden, die dann im Portal im Workspace-Formular eingetragen wird'), names the alternative that will not work, and states the prerequisite (a LinkedIn connection assigned to the workspace) plus the fact that no account ID is required. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and precondition are all covered.

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