ghl_ad_li_integration_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact endpoint and OAuth scopes (`adPublishing.readonly`), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., what happens if location not found) or rate limits. Hence, strong but not perfect.

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 extremely concise, with a clear title, a one-sentence explanation of the action, and then technical details (endpoint, version, OAuth scopes) in a compact format. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simple GET operation with two parameters, the description covers the purpose, required parameter, and authentication. However, it lacks any information about the response format or what fields the integration details contain. Since there is no output schema, the agent might need more context on what data to expect. Additionally, it does not mention if the integration must exist or what happens if it doesn't. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: `locationId` ('Location identifier') and `isDraft` ('Is draft'). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3. The tool name and description already imply locationId is the key parameter, so no further semantic value is provided.

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 'Get LinkedIn integration' and 'Retrieve the LinkedIn Ads integration details for a location', specifying the exact resource ('LinkedIn Ads integration details') and the scope ('for a location'). The title reinforces this. It is well-differentiated from sibling tools like ghl_ad_fb_integration_get and ghl_ad_google_integration_get by platform name.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes technical details like endpoint and OAuth scopes, but lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions. The agent must infer from the tool name and context that it is for retrieving LinkedIn integration details, but no contrast with create/update/delete siblings.

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