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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: pagination behavior, the `_truncated` incompleteness signal, per-creative request cost, the 60-creative cap, and that ad copy comes from LinkedIn's public Ad Library with no extra permission. This is rich disclosure the annotations do not provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core listing behavior, then warnings; every section is load-bearing. It runs long with capitalized emphasis, but the length is justified by the number of non-obvious caveats an agent must know before calling it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes needn't be explained, yet the description still clarifies the normalized `text` block, post_urn/post_permalink fields, and the ad_copy_status state — enough for an agent to interpret and correctly act on results.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains campaign_id filtering and gives deep meaning to include_previews (what it resolves, cost, cap). account_id is left implicit but is self-evident as the target account, leaving only a minor gap.

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 concrete verb+resource (lists creatives/ads in a LinkedIn account) with scope (fully paginated, optionally campaign-scoped) and names the complementary sibling linkedin_ad_copy. An agent can distinguish it from list_linkedin_campaigns and get_ad_details without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use include_previews=true on a shortlist (e.g. top-CTR rows), not on a 1,000-ad account, otherwise call linkedin_ad_copy with creative ids. It also states the cap of 60 and the ~2-request cost, giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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