linkedin get entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that account ownership is verified, which is a real behavioral trait, but it is duplicated in the entityId/adAccountId schema text and says nothing about failure modes when ownership fails.

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, and the operation scope arrives first. It is perhaps too compressed, since a few words on what 'verify account ownership' means in practice would cost little.

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 values need no explanation, all three required params are documented, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only the ownership-verification failure behavior is left implicit.

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%, with the enum for kind and patterns for entityId/adAccountId fully documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates the three readable resource kinds; with the schema doing the heavy lifting, 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read one') and enumerates the exact resource kinds (campaign group, campaign, creative), which cleanly sets it apart from the plural list siblings like linkedin_get_campaigns and linkedin_get_creatives. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the singular phrasing rather than stated.

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?

'Read one' implies the single-entity fetch case versus the list tools, and the ownership-verification clause hints at a prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for bulk retrieval.

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