Query business funding instruments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that - it does not explain pagination behavior despite max_pages/page_token existing, nor the filtering mode (ACTIVE|ALL) that governs results. For a paginated, open-world read it is thin.

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 short sentence with no waste, and the resource scope is front-loaded. It is concise to a fault rather than padded, so the sentence earns its place even if more was needed.

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 tool with six parameters, a nested data object, and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it omits filtering semantics, pagination, and any return-value expectation. An agent would need the schema to call this correctly, and even then the query-vs-list distinction against siblings is unresolved.

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 67%, so neither the schema nor the description fully documents the six parameters. The description adds zero parameter meaning - it never mentions business_id, the data object fields, search, or the pagination params, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (query) and resource (funding instruments) scoped to a business, which is clear enough on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling reddit_ads_list_funding_instruments, so an agent cannot tell which to pick without opening both schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The near-identical sibling list_funding_instruments is left entirely to inference, which is a real ambiguity for query-style vs list-style tools.

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