linkedin get media

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the returned URL is re-resolved/refreshed (suggesting a freshly signed, potentially expiring URL) and the call validates library membership. It does not say what happens on a media URN outside the account library (error vs empty result), which is the main behavioral gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action leads. It is arguably over-compressed: 'Refresh' carries the whole semantic load and would benefit from one clarifying clause about when a refresh is needed.

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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is guidance on error/edge behavior when the media is not in the library, plus routing versus linkedin_list_media.

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% and both parameters document their formats (URN pattern, numeric account ID restricted to LINKEDIN_ADS_ACCOUNT_IDS), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the framing that the media must be associated with the selected account's library, not per-parameter detail.

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 concrete action on a concrete resource: fetch/refresh a single image or video URL and confirm it belongs to the account's media library. The singular 'one image/video' implicitly contrasts with the sibling linkedin_list_media, though neither that sibling nor any other alternative is named.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for a single already-known media URN rather than enumerating a library. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use linkedin_list_media when Y', and no stated preconditions beyond the implicit library-association requirement.

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