ad_manager_li_get_ad_accounts

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the bare action, so it does not improve transparency. It's acceptable but not additive.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and directly states the purpose, which is appropriately minimal for a straightforward list operation.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could benefit from stating that it lists all ad accounts for the given location, but the name and parameter make this reasonably clear. Misses only optional context like pagination or return structure.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter locationId including its default behavior. The description itself contributes no parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline for 100% schema coverage. The default information is already in 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?

The description 'Get LinkedIn ad accounts' clearly states the verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from Facebook and Google siblings by naming the platform. However, it doesn't specify the scope or filtering behavior, leaving some ambiguity about whether it returns all accounts or ones tied to a location.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ad_manager_li_get_ad_account_details. The description gives no context about which scenarios warrant listing all accounts versus fetching a specific one, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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