get_my_competitor_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns only facts (creative, hook, days-running) and explicitly excludes scores or predictions, which is valuable beyond the tool name. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a simple read-only list tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then adds a clarifying scope and a practical use-case quote. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (ads with creative, hook, days-running facts) and what it excludes. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning ordering or pagination, but the core usage is well covered.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, which already includes its meaning and default value. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves ads from the user's configured competitors, with a specific scope: 'facts only (creative, hook, days-running), no scores or predictions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_competitor_ads and get_competitor_patterns by emphasizing both the data source and the factual-only nature.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Use for "what are my competitors running?"' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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