Get ad account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds meaningful context beyond that: the lookup is scoped to whatever account the API key is bound to, and the returned currency field governs the units used by money values in other tools — a behavioral/interpretation detail an agent would not derive from the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the field list, then the cross-tool currency caveat. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the returned fields and the currency semantics. It stops short of covering edge cases such as error behavior when the API key maps to multiple or no accounts, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so by rule the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing inputs.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus precise resource (the ad account tied to the API key), followed by the exact fields returned: name, URL, status, currency, timezone, brand/integrity review status. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling getters like get_ad, get_campaign, or get_ad_group, which target sub-resources rather than the account itself.

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 (fetch account-level metadata) and adds cross-tool context with the note that money values in other tools are expressed in this account's currency, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus account_summary or get_spend_limits, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit API-key scoping.

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