linkedin find targeting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that lookups are name-based and return URNs; it doesn't disclose whether results are account-scoped, what happens when no match exists, or that the facet governs the returned namespace.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It stays terse enough to be efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than crisp conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a three-parameter resolver the description omits what facets are usable, whether the query matches prefixes or exact names, and how the adAccountId scopes results — gaps an agent would want covered.

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 each parameter (facet, query, adAccountId) is already fully documented including defaults and patterns. The description adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'look up' + 'native targeting URNs', with a concrete example ('countries by name') that clarifies the name-to-URN resolution behavior. It does not differentiate from siblings (e.g., linkedin_validate_query or linkedin_get_entity, which could plausibly overlap), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the step for resolving human-readable targeting names before attaching them to campaigns, but the description names no alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions. Given ~17 siblings with potentially overlapping lookup roles, explicit routing guidance would help.

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