getAds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the status filtering behavior but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether pagination or limits apply, or what happens if neither adSetId nor campaignId is provided. These gaps are significant for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and the optional filter are both presented up front, and every word earns its place.

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 simple list-type tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, the two scopes, and the filter. The absence of an output schema or mention of return shape is a minor gap, but the tool's behavior is straightforward enough that an agent can call it correctly with the provided context.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it reinforces that ads can be fetched 'from an ad set or campaign' and that status filtering is supported. This matches the baseline of 3 because the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Get ads from an ad set or campaign.' It clearly indicates the tool's function and the two valid scopes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like getAdDetails or getAdSets, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool: when you need ads from an ad set or campaign, optionally filtered by status. It offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer getAds over getAdDetails or getAdSets, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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