List Ad Accounts

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that this tool returns the ids required by other report tools, effectively positioning it as a discovery prerequisite. It also lists the returned fields (id, name, platform), which enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and output, the second provides workflow guidance. There is zero fluff; every sentence earns its place. It's concise, scannable, and immediately informative.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is listed, what fields are returned, and how to use it in relation to other tools. No critical information is missing given the tool's simplicity and the schema's full parameter coverage.

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 100% coverage with both parameters (ids, fields) already described clearly. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters themselves; it only mentions the output fields (id, name, platform), which is not parameter-related. Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'List the ad accounts connected to Hyros with their id, name, and platform.' It uses a specific verb (List), specifies the resource (ad accounts connected to Hyros), and even mentions exact output fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling report tools by stating it should be called first to discover ids needed by hyros_get_ad_account_report and hyros_get_attribution_report.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Call this first to discover the ids that hyros_get_ad_account_report and hyros_get_attribution_report need.' This gives clear context and a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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