search_paid_endorsements

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return value (direct URLs) and gives an example, but it does not explain operational details like result ordering, rate limits, or whether this is read-only. The return information is useful, but the lack of annotations means more behavioral context would be valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for use cases, one for return value, and a clear example. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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 search tool with fully described parameters in the schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, return output, and a concrete example. Since there is no output schema, the return description ('direct URLs to the sponsored posts') is sufficient for the agent to understand expected results.

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%, so all three parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond a single keyword example, which is minimal added value over the schema. Baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('LinkedIn thought leader ads (paid endorsements)'), which clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from the sibling search_ads and search_jobs. The parenthetical explanation and use-case list make the purpose immediately understandable.

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 it: 'identify influencer partnerships, executive branding strategies, and creator-driven campaigns by competitors.' However, it does not mention exclusions or point to alternatives like search_ads for general ad searches, so it stops short of a 5.

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