read_ad_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns metadata but does not specify details like response format, error handling, authentication requirements (beyond the optional token parameter), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool has an output schema (which should cover return values) and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective agent use without additional inference or trial.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'account metadata' but does not explain what 'ad_account_id' represents (e.g., format, source) or the purpose of 'meta_access_token' (e.g., when it's required, how to obtain it). This fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('account metadata for a single ad account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_ad_accounts' or 'read_ad', which also retrieve ad account data, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_ad_accounts' for multiple accounts or other 'read_' tools for different resources. It lacks context on prerequisites, like when 'meta_access_token' is needed, or exclusions, making it insufficient for informed tool selection.

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