amazon ads get profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by warning that successful API access does not establish eligibility for Sponsored Brands, Display or DSP — a misinterpretation risk an agent would otherwise walk into when reading the returned account type.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero padding; the core purpose and returned fields come first and the eligibility caveat follows.

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, and the single parameter is schema-documented. What is slightly missing is failure behavior (e.g., an accountId not present in the configured profile list) and an explicit pointer to amazon_ads_list_profiles for discovery.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the accountId format, region-prefix patterns and AMAZON_ADS_PROFILE_IDS reference are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing further about the single parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (the selected Amazon Ads profile) and enumerates the fields returned: marketplace, account type, currency, timezone. The word 'selected' signals single-profile retrieval, implicitly contrasting with amazon_ads_list_profiles, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent must infer that this is the tool for fetching details of one known profile versus listing all profiles. No explicit when/when-not or named alternative is given; the second sentence is a caveat about eligibility, not routing guidance.

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