apple_search_ads_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that authentication and org context are handled, but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or that the tool can be destructive (as an escape hatch). An 'escape hatch' implies power and risk, but the description fails to elaborate, leaving the agent without crucial safety warnings.

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 highly concise: three sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place, achieving efficiency without sacrificing clarity.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error behavior, or how to construct the 'path' parameter (beyond the schema's note on leading slash). The agent lacks context on what the response looks like or how to handle failures.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters described). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, repeating only 'method + path'. It does not clarify the purpose of 'body', 'query', or 'noOrgContext', failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies this tool as an escape hatch for any Apple Search Ads endpoint, using method and path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it should only be used when no dedicated tool covers the endpoint. The verb 'call' and resource 'any Apple Search Ads endpoint' are precise.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use only if no dedicated tool covers the endpoint you need.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and implies when not to (when a dedicated tool exists). No alternatives are listed, but the condition is sufficient for decision-making.

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