ac_listProfiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals one important behavioral trait - that the tool may return no response unless certain conditions are met - which is valuable. However, it fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a read or write operation, what authentication is required, what the response format looks like, or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates one important constraint. There's no wasted language or redundancy. However, the structure is problematic because it leads with a 'Note that' warning rather than stating the tool's purpose upfront, making it less effective for quick comprehension.

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's complexity (4 filtering parameters, sibling tools for related operations), the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to explain the tool's core purpose, when to use it, or how it relates to other profile/account tools. For a tool in what appears to be an advertising API context with multiple related tools, this minimal description leaves too many gaps.

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 100%, with all 4 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention any of the filtering parameters or explain how they work together. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description provides zero additional parameter context.

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 doesn't state what the tool actually does - it only provides a conditional note about when a response is returned. The name 'ac_listProfiles' suggests listing profiles, but the description fails to confirm this purpose or explain what 'profiles' are in this context. It's essentially tautological with the name without providing meaningful clarification.

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 one specific condition for when the tool returns a response (requires at least one campaign), but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'ac_getProfileById', 'ac_ListAdsAccounts', or 'ac_updateProfiles'. There's no context about what problem this tool solves or when it's the appropriate choice among alternatives.

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