amazon ads get sb ads

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds useful context beyond them: Brands eligibility is required, archived states are included by default, and the result is configuration rather than performance data. It does not cover rate limits or detailed return behavior, but the output schema likely handles the latter.

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?

Four short sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, then eligibility, pagination, and a key semantic caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With rich annotations, a fully documented schema, and an output schema, the description supplies the key non-schema context an agent needs: eligibility, default inclusion of all ad states, pagination via nextToken, and the distinction between configuration and performance. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameter documentation already carries the full burden. The description only echoes schema-level facts such as the default state coverage and nextToken continuation, adding little semantic meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read one page of Sponsored Brands ads.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling resources such as campaigns, ad groups, and creatives in the same Sponsored Brands family.

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 states a real prerequisite ('Requires Brands eligibility in this profile') and tells the agent to follow nextToken, which is useful operational guidance. It does not explicitly name when to choose this over sibling endpoints, so it falls short of the top score.

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