roasr_spy_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output fields (hook, headline, format, tags, country, ad_archive_id), the empty-input behavior (returns top by days_live), and the meaning of days_live as a proxy for wins. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error cases, but for a search tool it is reasonably transparent.

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 compact—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core action ('Search stored competitor creatives'). Every sentence provides value: the first explains the search filters, the second covers return fields and the meaning of days_live. No wasteful repetition.

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 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the search capability, the output fields, the empty-input case, and the workflow link to Vision analysis. It does not specify the ordering for non-empty queries (e.g., relevance vs. days_live), but that is a minor omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that 'query' searches hook/headline/tags, and that 'brand' is an exact page-name filter. It also explains the effect of leaving both empty (returns top by days_live), which complements the schema. Thus it goes beyond the existing param descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Search stored competitor creatives from the Meta Ad Library.' It specifies the search dimensions (by keyword and/or brand) and explains what the keyword targets ('hook/headline/tags'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roasr_spy_tag_leaderboard or roasr_vision_analyze, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to search creatives by keyword or brand, and it notes the empty-input behavior. It also mentions a follow-up Vision analysis, indicating a workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use roasr_spy_tag_leaderboard instead), so it stops short of a full when/when-not guideline.

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