get_ad_accounts

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It provides useful behavioral details: currency units (not cents), optional access_token with caching, and default limit. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, error cases, or other side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is incomplete but not misleading.

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 concisely structured with a main line, a units note, and an Args list. Every section earns its place, though the Args list format could be slightly tightened. It avoids redundant filler and is well-organized.

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?

For a simple list operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: parameters, defaults, token caching, and units for specific returned fields. It does not delve into pagination or error handling, but given the existence of an output schema and the simplicity of a get, it is adequately complete.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: access_token (optional, cached), user_id (Meta user ID or 'me'), and limit (default 200). This adds meaning significantly beyond the schema's type/default definitions.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Get ad accounts accessible by a user.' This specifically identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_pages (pages) and get_account_info (likely a single account). The resource and scope are 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios (e.g., 'use this when you need a list of all accounts'). The description relies solely on the name and first line to convey usage context.

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