list_trackers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the GET HTTP method, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as scoping by ad account or session usage, though the schema covers that.

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 a single sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose and endpoint. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 readOnly annotation, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the resource and endpoint. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning that it returns all trackers or how the ad_account_id parameter scopes the result, but the schema covers parameter semantics.

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 coverage is 100%—both parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself does not add any parameter details, so it relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 lists pixels and SDKs (trackers) and provides the HTTP endpoint (GET /adAccounts/trackers). This specific resource name distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_campaigns or list_creatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides the resource name and endpoint, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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