Search Ads

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's credit-consumption warning, confirm=true requirement, and the clarification that the read-like POST does not publish to social platforms add real behavioral value. Nullability of date and impression fields is also disclosed, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and its filters, followed by constraints, return fields, and cost/auth caveats. It is slightly dense across four sentences, but each carries distinct information (dates, credit cost, nullability, pagination) and none is filler.

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 9-parameter credit-consuming tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (id, headline, adType, advertiser, targeting, media URLs, impressions), nullability, pagination, and credit/auth requirements. Rate limits or pagination termination behavior are not mentioned, but the essentials are present.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema; baseline is 3. The description restates the startDate/endDate pairing constraint and paginationToken usage, which largely duplicates what the schema already says rather than adding new syntax or semantics.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Searches) and a scoped resource (LinkedIn Ad Library ads), plus the three query modes (company, keyword, companyId). An agent can distinguish this from linkedin_ad_library_ad_details, which retrieves a single known ad rather than searching.

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?

It states operational prerequisites (confirm=true required, startDate/endDate must be used together, LinkedIn's one-year-to-yesterday window), which is useful. However, it never states when this tool is preferable to alternatives such as linkedin_ad_library_ad_details or linkedin_search_posts, leaving routing to inference.

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