ads_match

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 covers the return format (JSON string with matching ads and scores) and parameter constraints (default and max for top_k), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by 'match' and 'similar', but not explicitly stated.

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 well-structured. It front-loads the primary purpose, then uses clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections for parameter and output details. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It does not include examples or edge-case handling, but the tool is simple and the description covers the core usage and output. Slightly held back from 5 due to the lack of mention of error conditions or score semantics, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 only provides types and defaults, with no descriptions. The description compensates fully by detailing both parameters: 'query' as a text query to match against ads, and 'top_k' as the number of results with a default and max. This adds significant meaning beyond the structured 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 tool's function: 'Match ads by text query' and specifies the mechanism ('semantic similarity'). It identifies the resource (ads) and the operation (matching), making it easy to understand what the tool does.

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 implies usage (retrieve similar ads from a text query) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Since there are no sibling tools, a clear context is provided, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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