Get Ads

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needed to add extra behavioral context. It adds pagination defaults and return contents (creative details and status), which go beyond the structured data and help the agent understand what to expect.

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 opening line is efficient and front-loaded, and the Returns section is useful. However, the Args block duplicates the input schema almost verbatim, so a meaningful portion of the description does not earn its place.

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 read-only list operation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, pagination behavior, and optional filters. It could mention error conditions or rate limits, but these are less critical given the annotations and flat schema.

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%, and the Args section largely restates the schema's own descriptions and defaults. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the opening summary and the return note, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all ads for an ad account') with optional filters, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ad_accounts and get_campaigns by naming the exact entity returned.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when retrieving ads for an account, and the sibling set of create/update/status tools makes the read-only role obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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