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

Beyond the read-only and open-world annotations, the description discloses that results are cached for 24 hours, that the tool is free, that each ad includes hook text, platform, days running, and a why, and that providers indicates which sources are enabled and why any are off. It also handles the important behavioral case of empty results from disabled providers.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers in result fields, provider behavior, and downstream usage. It is slightly verbose with indentation artifacts and parenthetical asides, but nearly every sentence carries useful operational context.

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 six optional parameters, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers return fields, caching, provider status, empty-result handling, where to find competitor names, and how to use the results with hooks_generate.

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 still adds some meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that q can be a free search term and that competitor names come from brand_profile, which helps the agent populate those parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: finding ads a competitor or search term is running from connected ad libraries. It distinguishes this from research and content-generation tools by explaining that it returns hooks, platform, run duration, and a short rationale, and it names its downstream use with hooks_generate.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: look up competitor names in brand_profile, use radar_ads to find competitor ads, then remix winning hooks with hooks_generate. It also gives an explicit edge-case instruction: when ads is empty and no provider is enabled, tell the user ad sources are not set up rather than inventing ads.

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