Get Market Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that data is 'normalized' and from 'stored research', but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or the effect of active_only. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the main action and resource, then lists filters without unnecessary detail. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description is too brief for fully correct invocation. It does not explain limit behavior, active_only semantics, the advertiser/competitor distinction, or the structure of the returned evidence. More context is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions run, market, category, and 'competitor' filters, but omits limit and active_only. The term 'competitor' does not directly match the schema parameter 'advertiser', creating potential ambiguity for the agent.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'normalized ads and advertisers from stored research'. It also mentions optional filters (run, market, category, competitor), which helps distinguish it from siblings like search_meta_ads (likely live search) and get_research_run (run metadata).

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 implies usage for retrieving stored research data with filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or any exclusions. It provides no direct guidance on choosing between siblings.

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