search_competitor_ads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states what the tool returns, but does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or potential side effects. It does not contradict anything, but the lack of explicit safety or limitation notes leaves some ambiguity, though a search tool is typically non-mutating.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that each contribute value: purpose, output, and usage. There is no redundant or filler content, and the information is well-organized and front-loaded. It strikes an ideal balance between brevity and informativeness.

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?

Given that the output schema is not provided, the description appropriately mentions key return fields (hook types, creative styles, run duration) to give an idea of the result. It covers the main purpose and usage, and the parameter schema is detailed. However, it does not mention potential pagination or any limitations beyond the max limit, leaving minor gaps but overall sufficient for a search tool.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for all five parameters (limit, industry, hook_type, brand_name, creative_style), so the description adds little beyond what is already known. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding or mention any additional constraints or relationships.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'the ad library for competitor ads', making the purpose obvious. It also distinguishes this search tool from sibling tools like get_competitor_ads or get_competitor_channels by focusing on broad search and filtering. The mention of return fields (hook types, creative styles, run duration) further clarifies its intent.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios ('analyze competitor creatives, find inspiration, or see what a brand is running'), which guides when to employ it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly to alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies it is for search rather than specific retrieval. This is clear but lacks explicit negative guidance.

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