Check an ad account

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description only needs to add context. It hints at a readiness verdict but never says what 'ready' means, what conditions are checked, or what a negative result implies, leaving the behavioral picture thin.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and the resource. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return concept, and 'ready to run ads' is only vaguely defined. For a zero-parameter read check it is adequate, but an agent still cannot tell what the result will look like or how to act on it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already conveys; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('connected ad account') plus the intent ('ready to run ads'), which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_ad_accounts or connect_ad_account, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'ready to run ads' phrasing suggests calling this before launching campaigns, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_ad_accounts or connect_ad_account, and no prerequisites are given.

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