get_report_queries_ad_basic_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-only GET-style retrieval rather than a mutation, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what specifically the returned 'basic info' contains, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 concise and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It leads with the main purpose, then the endpoint and parameter routing guidance. There is no filler or redundancy worth trimming.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is not complete enough for safe and correct invocation. It does not explain what 'ad basic info' is meant to include, what filters and pagination parameters are accepted, or how this route relates to the many sibling AD/report query tools. The schema is also fully generic, so the description could carry more of the burden and does not.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add value by mapping route identifiers to path_params, filters and pagination to query, and required headers to headers. But it omits the body parameter and leaves the actual query/filter names and types unspecified, which is a meaningful gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve ad basic info') and names the endpoint, but 'basic info' is vague and does not disambiguate this tool from the many sibling get_report_queries_ad_* tools such as get_report_queries_ad_domain_details or get_report_queries_ad_users_view. It does enough to avoid a tautology but not enough to be clearly differentiated.

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?

It gives only mechanical guidance for how to structure the call: route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, headers in headers. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling report-query tools, nor are prerequisites, exclusions, or the intended business scenario described.

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