linkedin get delivery status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real domain context (user status vs. system serving status, account-to-creative scan breadth), but says nothing about scan cost, pagination, or response characteristics.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The diagnostic scope is front-loaded and the LinkedIn status-model note is a compact, useful follow-on.

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?

With a full output schema and annotations covering safety, the remaining burden is purpose and interpretation, both addressed. Only minor gaps remain around scan breadth when campaignIds is omitted and what the scan cost looks like.

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 account IDs, campaign filtering, and the includeCreatives default are already fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'down to the creative' loosely gestures at includeCreatives but adds no syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 diagnostic verb ('explain why') and the exact question it answers: LinkedIn ad serving state from account down to creative. That cleanly separates it from reporting siblings like linkedin_get_insights or linkedin_run_statistics_report, although no sibling is 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 by the framing ('is or are not serving') rather than stated as a rule. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-instead guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion of the reporting tools it overlaps with.

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