x ads get account stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is synchronous (immediate response), preserves pagination, and explains the _micro suffix for monetary values. These details go beyond the structured hints and help the agent interpret results correctly.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function and data types; the second adds crucial formatting and pagination notes. No filler or redundancy, making it easy to scan quickly.

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 and idempotency, the description sufficiently covers the essential operational aspects: synchronous behavior, data types, currency interpretation, and pagination. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but those are typically not required in tool descriptions when other signals exist. Minor gap: no mention of result count or typical response size, but overall complete for a stats-fetching 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?

All 8 parameters have complete descriptions in the schema, covering entity types, time windows, granularity, and placement. The description does not need to add parameter details; it adds only a note about output currency interpretation, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the tool fetches synchronous analytics (impressions, engagements, spend) for an ads account, naming the resource and data types. It also notes preserved Native X fields and micro currency formatting, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on campaigns, line items, or other entities.

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 description implies account-level analytics but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not name any sibling or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource name. Some guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for campaign-level metrics) would improve clarity.

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