discoverAdAccounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions that results are cached for 5 minutes, which is valuable operational context, and the 'Discover'/'Returns' language implies a non-destructive read operation. It does not discuss errors or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read tool the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, the return contents are summarized, and the caching behavior is a single relevant note. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 parameterless discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: what to call it for, what it returns, and the caching caveat. It does not describe the response structure or pagination, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description still adds useful context by identifying the System User Token as the implicit authorization scope, which is appropriate at the baseline level for parameterless tools.

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 verb ('Discover') and resource ('all ad accounts accessible via the System User Token'), and lists the returned data (IDs, names, business information). It is clear and easily distinguishable from siblings like getAccountInfo, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to enumerate all ad accounts available to the System User Token, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is present through the word 'Discover' and the scope phrasing, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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