list_ad_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'all connected ad accounts across platforms', which implies a broad scope but doesn't detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline score for adding some value.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only) and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses opportunities to explain return values (e.g., account details, platform info) or usage nuances, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effectiveness in more complex scenarios.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is given since the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, though it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond the empty schema.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'connected ad accounts across platforms', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_campaigns' or 'list_conversions', which would require a more specific scope statement to earn a 5.

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 like 'list_campaigns' or 'get_daily_spend'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing connected accounts) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios without explicit direction.

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