ads_list_ad_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope (System User's access) and the return fields (name, account_id, status, currency, owning business), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit from the verb 'List'.

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 two concise sentences: the main action first, followed by the return fields. There is no redundant or filler content, and the structure efficiently conveys the essential information.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields but omits any explanation of the `limit` parameter and pagination behavior. An agent would not know how to control the number of results or whether additional pages exist, making the description incomplete for full usage.

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 schema has one parameter, `limit`, with no description, and the tool description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate, so the agent must infer the parameter's meaning solely from its name and default value. No additional semantics are 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 'List all ad accounts the System User can access,' providing a specific verb (list), resource (ad accounts), and scope (all accessible to System User). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ads_get_ad_account by emphasizing 'all' versus a single account, and enumerates the return fields.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating all accessible ad accounts but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives such as ads_get_ad_account or mention any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred.

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