get_ad_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type and field defaults, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify pagination, what a null limit means, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, and 'List all' sits awkwardly with the limit parameter.

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 front-loaded with a single-sentence purpose followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Each parameter gets one clear line, and there is no filler or redundant information.

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 three-parameter read/list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: purpose, accepted parameters, and return shape. The main gaps are the missing pagination/null-limit semantics and lack of usage guidance, but the tool is otherwise callable from the provided text.

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 compensates well: act_id includes an example format, fields enumerates all available values and the default, and limit explains maximum result count. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though null limit behavior could still be clearer.

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—'List'—and a clear resource, 'ad labels', with the scope 'in an account'. It also explains what ad labels are for, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to cover the same resource.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'used for organizing campaigns, ad sets, and ads' implies a use case, but the agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected.

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