search_ads_by_keyword

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite ('LinkedIn Ad Library' product enabled) and return format ('List of ads matching the keyword with full details'), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, leaving some gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites, parameter details, and return information. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and returns, but lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error handling. The output schema likely handles return values, so this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'keyword' as the search term, 'country' as an optional ISO code filter, and 'count' with default and max values. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 with a specific verb ('Search for') and resource ('ads'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_ads' and 'search_ads_by_advertiser' by specifying it searches by keyword in ad content. This makes the purpose immediately understandable and differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by stating it requires 'LinkedIn Ad Library' product enabled, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'search_ads' or 'search_ads_by_advertiser'), though the purpose implies keyword-based filtering.

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