get_budget_pacing

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals it is a read operation (via '[Ads / read]') and crucially states that the local version is a stub, meaning it won't return live data without the hosted endpoint. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'get'.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence identifies purpose and category; the second clarifies the operational context. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only tool with good parameter coverage, but lacks any information about return format or data structure. Given no output schema, some additional context on what 'snapshots' contain would improve completeness.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it is an ads read tool for 'Daily campaign budget usage and pacing snapshots', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the hosted endpoint vs local stub nature.

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 explicitly notes that it is a hosted endpoint only and the local server is an introspection stub, guiding when to expect real data. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative get_* tools for similar ad data.

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