openai ads get spend limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that native fields and pagination are preserved — but says nothing about result volume, freshness, or whether windows are computed server-side.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the pagination note second. The trailing pointer to openai_ads_get_write_schema is questionable for a read-only tool and is the one part that does not clearly 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, annotations cover the safety and idempotency profile, and the single parameter is fully specified in the schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. What remains slightly thin is usage context — when this view is preferred over get_account — and the write-schema reference adds mild confusion rather than clarity.

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?

Only one parameter exists and its schema description is fully documented at 100% coverage, including the adacct_ pattern and the single-account API key scoping. The description adds no additional meaning about adAccountId, so the baseline of 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 a specific resource (account's spend limit windows and daily recurrence rules), which is narrow enough to distinguish it from campaign/insight/feed siblings. It stops short of naming a contrasting sibling or clarifying when the spend-limit view differs from get_account, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_account or the other account-level reads, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only guidance is a pointer to openai_ads_get_write_schema, which is about write payloads and does not tell the agent when to use this read tool.

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