get_account_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the set of returned field categories; it says nothing about authorization requirements, error behavior on an invalid/non-numeric ID, or rate limits.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler or repetition. Every clause (the enumerated field categories) carries 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, and its enumeration of returned fields partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. It stops short of covering failure modes or ID format validation beyond the schema note.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already supplies the key nuance ('numeric ID, not the URN'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (LinkedIn Ad Account details) and enumerates the fields returned (status, currency, notification settings, linked organization). The phrase 'a specific ... Account' implicitly distinguishes it from list_ad_accounts, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: it takes a single accountId and returns one account's details, so the agent can infer it is the point-lookup counterpart to list_ad_accounts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or valid-ID expectations.

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