ad_manager_fb_get_ad_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what details are returned, authentication requirements, or rate limits). It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate for neutral but insufficient extra disclosure.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the core function. It is ideally front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent the essential purpose. However, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting it is for a single Facebook ad account and contrasting with the plural list variant, but the name and schema largely compensate.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: locationId ('Location identifier Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted.') and adAccountId ('Ad account identifier'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 'Get ad account details' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (ad account details). It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ad_manager_fb_get_ad_accounts (plural) or platform-specific variants (google, li), though the name includes 'fb' and 'ad account' singular, which helps.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as ad_manager_fb_get_ad_accounts, ad_manager_google_get_ad_account_details, or ad_manager_li_get_ad_account_details. There is no mention of selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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