Check ad policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by confirming 'never changes the creative', noting the 1-credit cost, and explaining how it fetches live policy pages. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence delivers the core function and credit cost; the second clarifies it's a check and lists use cases. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists (so return values need no elaboration) and the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior well, the tool is fully contextualized. No missing details needed for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful context for the 'category' parameter (helps pick relevant policy pages) and implies how 'copy' and 'claims' differentiate, going slightly beyond the schema alone.

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 uses specific verbs ('pre-flights') and resources ('ad copy against Meta's Advertising Standards'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it's a check, not an edit. It also specifies the output format (verdict with quoted policy text and rewrites).

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 explicitly suggests categories where this tool is especially valuable (regulated-adjacent, strong claims), providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives among siblings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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