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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds value by disclosing the return contract (id, name, status, currency) and the dependency that the profile must be 'connected'. This is useful context beyond the structured 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 zero waste: the first states function and scope, the second states the downstream contract. Every sentence 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 1-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. It conveys purpose, scope, returned fields, and how its output feeds sibling ads tools - nothing needed to call it correctly 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 100% - the profile parameter is fully documented ('Profile name or sessionId from list_profiles.'). The description's phrase 'connected profile' reinforces parameter semantics but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('LinkedIn Ads accounts'), and scope ('available on a connected profile'), plus the returned fields (id, name, status, currency). It is unambiguous against siblings like list_ad_campaigns or list_profiles, which target different resources.

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 second sentence positions the tool as the entry point for the ads tool family: 'Use the returned id as `ad_account_id` in the other ads tools.' This tells the agent when the tool fits in a workflow. It lacks explicit exclusions naming alternatives (e.g., 'use list_profiles for profiles'), which keeps it a 4 rather than a 5.

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