Ad account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the account is scoped implicitly by an API key environment variable, and the account's currency governs every monetary value in the kit. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only getter the added context is solid.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The resource identity is front-loaded, the currency caveat follows, and the 'Start here' call to action closes it. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description bears the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by listing the returned fields (name, status, review, timezone, currency). It does not say what shape or nesting those fields take, which is the remaining gap for a zero-argument getter.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly explains that the target account is derived from the API key rather than passed in, which preempts an agent looking for an account_id argument.

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 names the specific resource (the ad account bound to OPENAI_ADS_API_KEY) and enumerates the fields it exposes: name, status, review, timezone, currency. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings such as get_ad, get_campaign or measurement_get_account_overview. It lacks an explicit verb, which is only a minor deduction given the name already supplies 'get'.

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?

'Start here' gives an explicit entry-point instruction, and the sentence about currency establishes a precondition an agent should know before calling any budget/bid/spend tool. There are no explicit when-not rules or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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