get_account_opportunity_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral switch, that summary_only groups by type whereas the default returns raw items capped at limit, and notes the source is the same as Ads Manager. It says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, or pagination beyond the limit hint, leaving notable gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with the topic front-loaded ('Kansscore-uitleg'). It wastes few words, though the telegraphic Dutch phrasing and parenthetical 'max limit' make it slightly cryptic rather than maximally efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 3-parameter read tool it covers the central summary_only behavior, but the undocumented ad_account_id and absent usage/permission context leave it only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description is expected to compensate. It explains two of three parameters, clarifying that summary_only controls grouped-vs-raw output and that limit caps the raw items, but it adds nothing about ad_account_id (defaults to null), leaving one parameter fully undocumented.

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 the resource ('openstaande aanbevelingen', i.e. outstanding recommendations) tied to 'Kansscore', which matches the tool name's intent, so the purpose is discernible. However, it is terse, Dutch-only, and relies on loose paraphrasing ('zelfde bron als Ads Manager') rather than naming the action and scope plainly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The reader is left to infer that this is the recommendations-retrieval endpoint from the name alone; the summary_only sentence describes output shape rather than usage context.

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