openai ads get write schema

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns pinned definitions, upload/bulk limits, server omissions, and warns that schema support does not equal account eligibility. It does not mention response format, but an output schema exists.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is appropriately placed at the end as a qualifier.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough additional context (limits, omissions, eligibility caveat) for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to interpret it. No critical gaps for this introspection tool.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable for a high-coverage schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and the exact resource ('pinned native request definitions, paths and parameters of every operation, upload and bulk limits, and what this server leaves out'). It distinguishes this introspection tool from sibling data-retrieval tools implicitly, but does not explicitly contrast with similar write-related tools like get_write_context or get_mutation.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to discover operation schemas), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or prerequisites for use. The caveat 'Schema support does not imply that the account is eligible for a feature' is helpful context but not usage routing.

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