bing get ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry native creative assets, URLs and status, and that adTypes filters returned formats; it says nothing about auth, pagination, or result volume.

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 short sentences with the read scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the adTypes schema description, so it does not fully 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all five required parameters are fully documented in the schema. The main omission is the account→campaign→adGroup hierarchy requirement, which would help an agent assemble the call correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter is documented in the schema, including the adTypes enum and the note that unlisted formats are omitted. The description's sentence on adTypes largely restates the schema description rather than adding new meaning, 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 and resource ('Read ads') plus the payload returned (creative assets, URLs, status). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling bing_list_ad_creatives, leaving the agent to guess which read tool to pick.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative bing_list_ad_creatives. The only usage-flavored sentence ('adTypes controls which formats Microsoft returns') is really parameter behavior, not selection guidance.

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