search_ads_by_advertiser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the required product enablement and default/max values for 'count' (default 25, max 100). However, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs beyond the product requirement, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist).

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, prerequisite note, and organized parameter/return sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical prerequisite information, and the parameter/return sections document essential details. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the prerequisite into a single flowing paragraph, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, prerequisite, parameter semantics, and return format. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks guidance on error conditions, rate limits, or sibling tool differentiation, which would make it more comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully adds meaning for all three parameters: clarifies 'advertiser_name' as the advertiser/company name, specifies 'country' uses ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes and is optional, and explains 'count' default and max values. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide examples or elaborate on format constraints beyond the country code standard.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for all ads by a specific advertiser/company.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('ads'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_ads' and 'search_ads_by_keyword' by focusing on advertiser-based filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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?

The description provides some usage context by stating the prerequisite: 'Requires "LinkedIn Ad Library" product enabled in your LinkedIn Developer app.' This implies when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_ads' or 'search_ads_by_keyword', nor does it mention exclusions or edge cases.

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