linkedin list ad creatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — that delivery metrics are excluded — but says nothing about pagination behavior, coverage fields, or the adIds resolution path beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by output-shape and scope notes. No filler or redundancy.

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 not be explained, and the description plus schema together cover the key facts an agent needs. The only gaps are competitive positioning against sibling media tools and the adIds-vs-paging interaction.

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 the schema already documents adAccountId, adIds, limit and pageToken in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., that adIds bypasses paging, or that limit counts ads scanned rather than creatives returned), so 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 verb and resource ("List the images and playable videos used by the ads of an account") and adds a useful qualifier ("with the actual ad names"). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like linkedin_list_media or linkedin_get_creatives, so an agent still has to infer which media-listing tool to pick.

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?

"Does not report delivery" is a real exclusion that implicitly routes delivery questions to linkedin_get_delivery_status, but the guidance is purely negative. There is no positive statement of when to choose this over linkedin_list_media or linkedin_get_creatives.

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