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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. States it returns per-entity rows with delta columns and that deltas are computed server-side. Does not mention read-only status or rate limits, but for a comparison tool this is adequate.

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?

Concise 4 sentences with no fluff. Front-loads purpose, then details modes, output, and use cases. Effectively communicates without excess.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return structure. Sufficient for agent to understand tool's niche among siblings. Could mention required parameters (none required) but overall complete.

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 low (20%). Description adds meaning for 'comparison' enum and 'fields' (implicitly). Does not detail 'campaign_ids' or 'ad_account_id', but these are standard in LinkedIn tools. Some value added beyond 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?

Describes a specific action: comparing campaign performance across two time periods. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like li_get_campaign_performance which likely returns single-period data.

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?

Explains when to use (weekly/monthly reports, anomaly detection) and details the three comparison modes. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is clear enough for the agent.

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

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.

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

Describes return fields (name, type, source, estimated size, status) and the 'where LinkedIn reports it' nuance. Without annotations, this provides necessary behavioral insight, though pagination is not mentioned (implied by page_size parameter).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields and usage. It lacks error handling details but covers essential aspects for a list operation.

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 33% (only 'type' has schema description). The description reinforces the 'type' enum values from the schema but adds no extra meaning for 'ad_account_id' or 'page_size'. It partially compensates by explaining the tool's output context.

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 'List DMP segments attached to a LinkedIn ad account' and explains segment types (USER, COMPANY). This verb-resource pair is specific and distinct from sibling 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?

Explicitly provides two use cases: auditing audiences before campaigns and confirming upload success. It gives context but does not exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the core behavior: compares spend over period_days, returns utilization_pct, operates on active campaigns. It is a read-only analytic, so safety is implied. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: first defines purpose, second explains logic, third provides usage examples. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded. No unnecessary details.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (utilization_pct per campaign) and the underlying logic. It covers inputs, behavior, and output adequately for a simple analytic tool. The complexity is low, and the description is self-contained.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions; the description adds context for period_days (should match budget period) and campaign_ids (defaults to all active). For ad_account_id, which lacks schema description, the description does not cover it, but it's a standard parameter. The description adds value beyond 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 clearly states the tool calculates budget utilization for active LinkedIn campaigns, specifying it compares spend and returns utilization percentage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like li_get_campaign_performance, which provides general performance metrics.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: mid-flight pacing checks with thresholds (below 80% under-delivering, above 100% over-pacing). Also explains optional campaign_ids and default scope. Could be improved by mentioning alternatives like li_get_campaign_performance for other metrics.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what is returned (full detail) but does not explicitly declare that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. However, the context implies a read operation, and the description is transparent about the output.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and details, and the second sentence provides usage context. Every word is necessary and informative.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists many returned fields (targetingCriteria, bid strategy, budget, etc.), giving a complete picture of what the agent can expect. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is thorough.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by noting that campaign_id is required and ad_account_id defaults to LINKEDIN_DEFAULT_AD_ACCOUNT, providing operational context beyond 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'complete detail for a single LinkedIn campaign' and enumerates specific elements like targetingCriteria, bid strategy, etc., clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like li_get_campaign_performance.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'audit targeting setup, diagnose budget configuration, or confirm campaign structure before pulling performance data.' This helps an agent select the right tool.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses default date range (last 28 days) and list of returned metrics. Implies read-only operation. Does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read tool this is acceptable.

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?

One paragraph of 4 sentences, each sentence packed with meaningful information. Front-loaded with purpose and key metrics, then parameter usage. No filler or 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?

No output schema, but description enumerates all returned metrics. Covers all 7 parameters with usage context. Explains aggregation levels (pivots) and date ranges. Complete for a read tool with no side effects.

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 71%. Description adds context beyond schema: explains the role of campaign_ids, ad_account_id, default dates, and lists default fields. Helps understand parameter behavior without reading 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Fetch performance metrics' for 'LinkedIn campaigns over a date range.' Lists specific metrics and parameters, distinguishing it from siblings like li_get_campaign (which would return campaign details).

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use campaign_ids vs ad_account_id, and default date range. Supports various time granularities and pivots. However, does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative sibling tools like li_get_conversion_performance for conversion-specific metrics.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description is straightforward but lacks explicit behavioral warnings or details beyond the function.

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?

Description is three sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second enumerates return fields, third lists use cases. Well front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return values (name, type, enabled status, attributionType, attribution windows, Insight Tag). It covers typical use cases but could mention pagination implications (page_size parameter) and prerequisites (ad account access). Minor gaps.

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 67% (ad_account_id and enabled_only have descriptions). The description does not add significant parameter-level details beyond the schema; it lists return fields rather than elaborating on parameters like page_size. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it lists LinkedIn conversion event definitions on an ad account, and enumerates return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like li_get_conversion_performance which return performance data, not definitions.

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?

Description explicitly states use cases: audit conversion event setup, confirm event names before pulling conversion performance, verify attribution window configuration. It does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, but provides clear context for when to use.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full responsibility. It clearly states the operation is a read fetch and lists the returned metrics. However, it omits details like rate limits, data freshness, auth requirements, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured: core action first, then return fields, then use cases, then scoping. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly shorter. The front-loading is effective for quick agent parsing.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fairly explains return values by listing the metrics and their meaning. It also covers the pivot dimension. It does not mention pagination, data limits, or error handling, but for a report tool with moderate complexity, the coverage is mostly complete.

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 60%. The description adds only minor repetition of scoping guidance for campaign_ids ('Scope to specific campaigns or report at account level'). It offers no additional meaning for parameters like ad_account_id, end_date, or fields beyond what is in the schema, and does not compensate for the 40% of parameters lacking schema descriptions.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Fetch'), resource ('conversion performance'), and unique breakdown ('by conversion event'). It lists specific metrics returned and provides concrete use cases (compare cost-per-conversion, diagnose event value, build funnel). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling campaign-performance 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?

Explicitly states scoping options ('Scope to specific campaigns or report at account level') and describes when to use (comparing cost-per-conversion, diagnosing event value, building funnels). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select this tool.

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

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

No annotations provided; description fully discloses returned fields (content, status, campaign URNs, type). No mention of rate limits or auth, but sufficient for a read operation.

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, front-loaded purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

No output schema, but description enumerates key return fields. Lacks error handling details, but covers primary use case comprehensively.

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%; description adds value by specifying 'numeric ID or URN' for creative_id and default value for ad_account_id, beyond 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?

Description starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get full detail for a single LinkedIn ad creative') and lists included fields, clearly differentiating from sibling listing tools like li_list_creatives.

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 states use cases: auditing ad copy, debugging rejected creatives, cross-referencing URLs. Does not mention when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns impressions, clicks, spend, leads, and conversions per dimension value, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, data freshness, pagination, or handling of multiple campaigns.

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 (6 sentences) and well-structured, front-loading the purpose, listing options with context, stating return metrics, and ending with use cases. No superfluous sentences.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (5 undocumented in both schema and description), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description omits critical context for filtering (campaign_ids, ad_account_id, date range) and does not explain the response structure beyond listing metrics.

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 description adds significant value for the pivot parameter by explaining each enum value and grouping them by use case, supplementing the schema's 17% coverage. However, it provides no semantics for other parameters like campaign_ids, ad_account_id, start_date, end_date, and fields.

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's purpose: breaking down LinkedIn campaign performance by a demographic dimension. It lists all pivot options and distinguishes itself from siblings like li_get_campaign_performance by focusing on demographic breakdowns and specific use cases (buyer-persona fit, ABM).

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 provides clear usage contexts for each pivot option (e.g., persona fit, ABM analysis, geo reporting) and implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like li_get_campaign_performance for overall metrics.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the breakdown by creative and computed metrics, which aids transparency. However, it does not mention non-obvious behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authorization needs, or data freshness, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and metrics, followed by use cases. No redundant or unnecessary information. Every sentence is purposeful and efficient.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what metrics are returned and provides use cases. However, it leaves ambiguity about how the breakdown by creative is structured and does not explain the role of ad_account_id or the default behavior of date parameters. Still, it covers the core purpose well.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add information for the undocumented parameters (end_date, ad_account_id), nor does it clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent unclear about these parameters.

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 fetches LinkedIn Lead Gen Form performance analytics broken down by creative, listing specific metrics (impressions, clicks, opens, submissions, spend, and computed metrics like formOpenRate). It also differentiates from siblings like li_get_leadgen_forms (which lists forms) and li_get_leadgen_responses (which gets individual responses) by focusing on performance analytics.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'identify high-performing LGF creatives, diagnose drop-off between form open and submission, or compare cost-per-lead across campaigns.' It implies when to use the tool but does not specify when not to use or directly compare with alternatives. However, the context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description correctly implies read-only behavior by stating it 'lists' and 'returns' data. It does not disclose potential pagination or rate-limiting behavior. The description is adequate but not exhaustive for a list operation.

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 three concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists returns, third gives use cases. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the main return values (name, state, questions, thank-you page, landing page). It lacks details on pagination metadata or any potential empty results. Overall, it is mostly complete for a list tool.

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 input schema has 33% description coverage (only state has a description). The description adds context for the state parameter (e.g., 'ACTIVE forms are live on ads'), but does not elaborate on ad_account_id or page_size. Coverage is low, but the description partially compensates for state.

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 starts with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'LinkedIn Lead Gen Forms on an ad account'. It enumerates returned fields (name, state, questions, thank-you page, landing page) and provides distinct use cases (audit form setup, confirm state, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like li_get_campaign or li_get_leadgen_responses.

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 lists three concrete scenarios (audit form setup, confirm state before troubleshooting, verify attached forms) that indicate when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It warns about PII and sensitive data handling, and describes the response structure. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, with no 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 explains the return values (questionResponses with fields and timestamp) and data sensitivity, which is crucial with no output schema. It lacks pagination details but is otherwise complete for the tool's purpose.

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 description mentions filtering by lead_form_id and date range, adding meaning to those parameters. However, it does not mention ad_account_id or page_size. Schema coverage is 60%, so description compensates partially but not fully.

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 it retrieves Lead Gen Form submission data from LinkedIn, specifying the resource and the verb ('Retrieve'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like li_get_leadgen_forms (which lists forms) by focusing on responses.

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 provides explicit use cases: lead-to-CRM reconciliation, auditing lead quality, and confirming form integration. It does not mention when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what data is returned but does not mention side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether it is read-only (though implied). Basic transparency is present but lacks depth.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads purpose and return fields, the second gives usage guidance, and the third explains scoping. Every sentence is essential 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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers return metrics, interpretation, and scoping. Missing details like response format, pagination, or time zone handling. Still fairly complete for a read-only analytics tool.

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 only 20% (one parameter described). The description adds value by explaining campaign_ids: 'Scope to specific campaigns via campaign_ids or report at account level.' However, other parameters (ad_account_id, dates, time_granularity) receive no explanation. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage but not fully.

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 it fetches video-specific performance metrics for LinkedIn campaigns, broken down by creative. It lists specific metrics and distinguishes from sibling tools like li_get_campaign_performance by specifying 'video-specific' and 'broken down by creative'.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use to evaluate video ad quality — high completion rates indicate compelling content; low rates signal drop-off.' It also explains scoping options via campaign_ids or account level. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare directly with siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adequately describes the tool as a read-only list operation, details the returned data, and mentions filtering. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior beyond the page_size parameter, rate limits, or authentication specifics beyond 'authenticated user.'

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 brief (two sentences plus a filter note), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, return fields, usage context, and parameter options. It lacks details on cursor-based pagination or error handling, but for a simple list tool with two optional params, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the status filter and its options (including the default of showing all statuses when omitted), which adds marginal context but doesn't significantly supplement 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 clearly states the tool lists all LinkedIn ad accounts accessible to the user, specifies returned fields (ID, name, status, currency, type, reference organization URN), and distinguishes itself from siblings like li_get_account by focusing on listing multiple accounts.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this first to discover the ad_account_id needed by other tools,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also explains the optional status filter and its effect.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the returned fields but omits details like pagination behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, then usage guidance. No redundant or extra words. Every sentence adds value and is easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (3 params), the description lacks parameter details and pagination behavior. It covers purpose and output fields partially but not fully. It is usable but leaves the agent with unanswered questions for robust invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not mention ad_account_id, status, or page_size at all. The only hint is 'in a LinkedIn ad account' implying ad_account_id, but no details on usage, default, or enum meanings. This is a critical 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists campaign groups in a LinkedIn ad account, defines what campaign groups are, and specifies the returned fields (name, status, total budget, run schedule, campaigns count). It distinguishes from siblings by advising use before pulling campaign-level data, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use to understand account structure before pulling campaign-level data,' providing a clear context. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read operation by listing campaigns, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or pagination details. It returns specific fields but not the output format (e.g., array).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by returned data and filtering/alternative. 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 covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs sufficiently for a listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state the output is an array or mention pagination or sorting behavior. The return fields are listed but not structured.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description mentions filtering by status and campaign_group_id, adding context to those parameters. However, it does not describe page_size or ad_account_id further, and the schema already covers parameter 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 uses the verb 'List' with the resource 'campaigns in a LinkedIn ad account', making the action and scope clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling li_get_campaign by noting that the latter provides full targeting 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?

The description states filtering options (status, campaign_group_id) and explicitly recommends li_get_campaign for full targeting detail. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the alternative is clearly given.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes returned fields and filtering behavior. Lacks mention of pagination beyond page_size parameter, rate limits, or error handling, but overall is transparent about the tool's read-only nature and output.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and return fields adequately for a list tool with no output schema. Provides sibling guidance. Missing default ordering or pagination details (though page_size parameter exists), but overall sufficient.

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 already describes campaign_id and status well. Description adds practical usage context ('see all creatives on a specific campaign', 'find paused/archived ads'), enhancing parameter meaning beyond schema. However, does not elaborate on ad_account_id or page_size beyond 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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'ad creatives in a LinkedIn ad account'. Explicitly lists return fields (creative content type, intendedStatus, campaigns, content URNs) and distinguishes from sibling li_get_creative, which provides full detail on a single creative.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: filter by campaign_id or status. Directs to li_get_creative for detailed content, which prevents misuse and clarifies alternative.

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

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.