product_page_reasons_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Find' and 'audit'), but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The minimal information is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 efficient: two sentences that convey purpose, filterable fields, and intended use. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity (nested selector with filtering options) and lack of output schema, the description could be more complete by indicating the result structure (e.g., list of reasons with fields). However, the core purpose is clear, and the schema details the input adequately.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (selector and orgId). The tool description adds value by listing specific filterable field names (adamId, productPageId, etc.) not detailed in the schema, aiding the agent in constructing queries.

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 the tool finds ad-creative rejection reasons and mentions specific filterable fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'product_page_reasons_get', relying on the name suffix 'find' vs 'get' to imply the difference.

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 a use case ('audit why a creative was rejected') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'product_page_reasons_get' for retrieving a single reason. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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