Check ad policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond this: it pulls live Meta policy pages, returns verbatim quotes, provides compliant rewrites, never edits creative, and charges a flat 1 credit. These details enrich the agent's understanding beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the method, differentiates it from editing, and gives usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value without excessive verbosity. It is reasonably concise given the amount of contextual information (cost, output format, use cases). Slightly longer than strictly necessary but well-organized.

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 tool's complexity (live external data, verdicts, verbatim quotes, rewrites) and lack of output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: return format (verdict, quotes, rewrite), non-destructive behavior, cost, and when to prioritize it. It does not mention rate limits or prerequisites, but these are not critical for basic invocation. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 all parameters are adequately described in the schema. The tool description does not add any param-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'copy' implicitly and referencing categories in the usage guidance. It does not explain how to format or what to include for each parameter beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 action ('Pre-flight ad copy against Meta's REAL, live Advertising Standards'), identifies the resource (ad copy) and outcome (verdict pass/fix/block). It explicitly differentiates from editing tools by stating 'It's a check, not an edit', which helps distinguish from potential siblings like edit-oriented tools. The purpose is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 provides clear context on when to use it: 'before you run it' and for specific regulated-adjacent categories or strong claims. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficiently contextual to guide an agent. Missing an explicit when-not clause prevents a 5.

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