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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the scope (all active, optionally paused), the aggregation behavior (counts by review status), and the filtering behavior (details only for disapproved/with issues/pending). It does not cover error behavior or exact payload structure, but the core operational behavior is clear.

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 tight sentences with no filler: scope, output shape, and use case. The most important decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context that is missing from structured fields: output style, filtering behavior, and audit use case. It leaves minor gaps such as exact count field names and pagination, but it is sufficient for a competent agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by mapping include_paused to 'optionally paused' and ad_account_id to account scoping, but it does not materially extend the parameter documentation.

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 names a specific operation (check review and policy status), a specific resource (ads in an account), and the exact output scope (aggregate counts plus details for problematic ads only). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like adsap_get_ad_status, which presumably covers general ad status rather than review/policy status.

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?

States a concrete use case: 'Useful in audits to surface policy violations and delivery blockers.' It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the review/policy focus and audit purpose provide clear context for when to call it.

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