li_get_account

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves the agent without critical safety context.

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, no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows. Every word adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns and when to use it. It could be enhanced by mentioning the output structure more explicitly, but the listed fields suffice.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already describes the parameter well.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a single LinkedIn ad account, listing specific fields like currency, status, account type, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like li_list_ad_accounts (list vs detail).

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?

Explicit guidance is given: useful for confirming account currency before interpreting spend data or checking billing status before troubleshooting. While no when-not-to or alternatives are mentioned, the usage scenarios are clear and actionable.

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