ad_manager_li_get_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — no auth requirements, return format, or side-effect notes. Since annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste — appropriate for a trivial read tool. Nothing extraneous, though it is at the absolute minimum viable length.

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, safe, idempotent read with one optional parameter fully documented in the schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is mostly adequate. However, it offers no guidance on what the integration data looks like or when it might not exist, which slightly detracts from completeness.

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 the single optional parameter locationId is already documented in the schema ('Location identifier Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted'). The description adds no meaning 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 and resource: 'Get LinkedIn integration'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ad_manager_fb_get_integration and ad_manager_google_get_integration through the 'li' platform prefix, and from ad_manager_li_create_integration through the get/create contrast. Clear but minimal.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to call this vs. creating an integration, nor any exclusions. The read-only nature is implied only by the verb, and the locationId default behavior is documented only in the schema, not in the description.

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