get_competitor_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest-published first), pagination (page by page), summary contents (totals, run lengths, video mix, coverage), and that each ad includes a watch_asset_id for deconstruction. It also warns about include_summary being channel-scoped and a performance consideration when paging.

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 brief, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: purpose, key field, usage context, and channel slug list. No fluff or redundant restatements.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description explains the summary fields and the watch_asset_id. It does not enumerate all ad fields, but given the schema covers parameters and the description covers output highlights, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to predict the tool's behavior. Minor gaps include not describing error cases or what happens if no ads exist.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the canonical channel slugs (meta_ad_library, tiktok_ad_library, etc.) which are not enums in the schema, and by explaining the purpose of watch_asset_id and the include_summary behavior beyond the schema text.

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 states exactly what the tool does: retrieves one competitor's captured ads for one channel, page by page, newest first, with a whole-set summary. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'ONE competitor' and 'ONE channel', and names the prerequisite get_competitor_channels.

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 a clear 'Use after get_competitor_channels' instruction and implies the tool is for a single competitor/channel. However, it omits the alternative source for competitor_id (topic id from get_category_topics) mentioned in the schema, so the guidance is not exhaustive.

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