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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful context by listing return fields, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, default limit behavior, or whether all campaigns are included when campaign_ids is omitted. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return fields, and the second adds the actionable pairing suggestion. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the main return content and its relationship to the performance sibling. No output schema exists, but the fields listed are sufficient for an agent to know what to expect; pagination/ordering details are minor for this tool.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions. The description mentions campaign and ad account contextually but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the individual ads in a LinkedIn ad account,' and enumerates the returned fields (copy, headline, format, status, campaign, Thought Leadership flag). It also references the sibling get_ad_performance_breakdown, making it easy to distinguish from performance-focused tools.

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?

The description gives clear workflow context by naming get_ad_performance_breakdown as the companion tool to see performance, implying this tool is for the creative-level ad data itself. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when not to use it, but the pairing instruction makes the intended usage clear.

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