search_ads_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that access_token is optional and falls back to a cached token, and the curl example reveals it's a GET request, but it omits pagination, rate limits, and error handling.

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 well-organized with a concise purpose statement, an Args list, and a practical example. It is slightly long, but each section serves a clear function.

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 search tool with an output schema, this description covers the core purpose, all parameters, and usage context. It lacks explicit guidance on pagination and alternative tools, but is otherwise 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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args section and providing a concrete curl example. It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying optionality and example values.

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 a specific verb 'Search' and names the resource 'Facebook Ads Library archive', clearly defining the tool's functionality. This resource scoping distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_pages_by_name or search_interests.

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 through a curl example, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives like search_pages_by_name or search_interests. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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