ac_GetAccount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'requests attributes,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. The permissions section is empty, offering no insight into auth needs. It lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but includes an empty permissions list that adds no value, wasting space. The parameter section repeats schema content unnecessarily. It could be more efficient by omitting redundant details. However, it's not overly verbose, and the structure is clear with headings, though not optimally concise.

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 covers return values), 1 parameter with full schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and meaningful permissions info. For a simple read tool, it's passable but incomplete, as it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or provide rich operational context.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It repeats the parameter description for 'advertisingAccountId' verbatim from the schema, which has 100% coverage. No additional context, examples, or constraints are provided. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.

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 purpose as 'Request attributes of a given advertising account,' which specifies the verb ('request attributes') and resource ('advertising account'). It distinguishes from siblings like ac_ListAdsAccounts (which lists accounts) and ac_getProfileById (which retrieves profiles), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable, though not maximally 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions permissions but lists none, which is unhelpful. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to siblings like ac_ListAdsAccounts for listing accounts or ac_getProfileById for profile data. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, lacking explicit when/when-not instructions.

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