x ads list ads accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by noting that Native X fields and pagination are preserved and that _micro fields are denominated in millionths of the account currency, which is important for interpreting monetary values.

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?

The description is compact, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds important behavioral detail about field preservation and unit semantics, though the phrasing is slightly dense and would benefit from a comma after 'access.'

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 only one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. The added details about pagination preservation and _micro units fill the most significant gaps an agent would need to interpret results 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?

The schema covers the only parameter 'account_ids' with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not itself explain the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the ads accounts the authenticated user can access.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools targeting other resources (campaigns, line items, funding instruments, etc.). The additional note about Native X fields and pagination reinforces that it returns a list of account objects.

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 clarifies that the tool returns accounts accessible to the authenticated user, which implies an appropriate context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use it relative to sibling tools. The distinction is mostly inferable from the resource name rather than stated guidance.

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