search_swipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It discloses the enrichment data (days-running, spend range, audio, variations) that the tool returns, and the verb 'search' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify any state or mention any side effects. Given the context of a search tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently conveys the resource, enrichment, and usage context without any redundant words 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 search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and key enrichment fields. It doesn't detail return structure beyond the enrichment list, but given the simplicity and the schema descriptions, it suffices. It lacks explicit mention of ordering or edge cases, but these are not critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% since both 'limit' and 'brand_name' have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it only mentions enrichment features and usage context, not how the parameters affect results. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema covers everything.

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 identifies the resource (the marketer's own saved swipe file) and action (search), and explicitly distinguishes it from competitor-focused tools by emphasizing 'OWN saved swipe file' and 'the marketer themselves has saved/admired.' This directly separates it from sibling tools like 'search_competitor_ads' and 'get_my_competitor_ads'.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use to ground a question in what the marketer themselves has saved/admired.' This tells the agent when to use it (grounding in personal saved ads) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The implication of 'OWN' differentiates it from competitor ad searches, but no direct exclusions are given.

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