Pull competitor ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Spends credits,' 'Meta only,' 'deduped, sorted, with the right page resolved,' and 'real live ads.' This goes beyond the structured data without contradiction.

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 key purpose ('FAST PATH') and scope. The supporting rationale about Meta having the richest creative is useful but slightly verbose. Each sentence earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with annotations.

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?

For a query tool with no required params and a complete schema, the description clearly conveys what it returns (real ads, deduped, sorted) and how to use it. It omits output structure, but that is not expected absent an output schema. It also flags credit cost, which is important for agent planning.

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 already described. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it restates defaults like limit 30 and country 'US'), providing marginal added value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('pulls a named brand's real live ads from the META ad library') and distinguishes it from research_ads and Google/LinkedIn-specific tools. It immediately identifies the key scope (Meta only) and the differentiating factor (fast path for named brands), so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit routing: 'Prefer this over research_ads whenever the brand is named' and 'For Google or LinkedIn specifically, use search_google_ads or search_linkedin_ads.' This leaves no room for mis-selection and clearly states when not to use it.

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