li_search_targeting_facets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns matching facet values with URNs, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotence or mention rate limits or side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with bullet-like examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a search tool, but lacks details on the return format (e.g., object structure) and pagination. Given no output schema, a bit more on return values would improve 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?

The schema covers all parameters, but the description adds value by listing example facets and explaining how results are used for campaign targeting, enhancing understanding beyond the schema details.

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 searches LinkedIn targeting facet values to find URNs for audience targeting. It lists specific facets and use cases, distinguishing it from sibling get/list tools.

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 description explains the tool is useful for researching targeting options and building audience documentation, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling set lacks other search tools.

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