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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' statement is a partial restatement. What it adds beyond that is meaningful: the exact waste-detection thresholds an agent should expect in the results, and the fact that output includes remediation suggestions rather than raw rows only.

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, front-loaded with the core criteria and closed with the safety/advisory note. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 seven-parameter, fully-documented, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what it finds, how it defines waste, and that it returns recommendations. An agent can decide to call it and interpret the response without needing more.

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% and every parameter (detail, folder, account, date_range, start/end_date, language) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as how thresholds interact with date_range or what the default scope is, 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?

Names a specific analytical resource with concrete detection criteria: lead-gen/conversion campaigns with spend and zero results, cost per result above 2× account average, CPC outliers, low-CTR ads. The LinkedIn prefix in the name and the criteria make it unmistakable against siblings like linkedin_performance or linkedin_breakdown.

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 opening phrase establishes the use case (finding money spent without results) and the closing claim ('suggests what to pause or fix') implies the follow-up action. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name linkedin_performance as the alternative for general reporting, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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