get_ad_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the 'Read' verb. The description adds that 'Targeting chips are read-only for existing ads,' which provides a specific behavioral trait beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or response format.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value—the first states the core purpose, the second adds a key behavioral note. No unnecessary text.

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 simple tool, the description omits important details: what 'ad form fields' includes, how the ad_id parameter is used, and what the output looks like. The openWorldHint annotation partially compensates, but the description lacks completeness for the agent to use it effectively.

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 one parameter (ad_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning. This is a critical gap for a required parameter.

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 'Read ad form fields,' which specifies a verb and a resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_budget or get_ad_stats_csv, though it does not explicitly differentiate. The purpose is clear and concise.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or sibling tool distinctions. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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