get_ad_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool uses the current token and that it returns all accessible accounts, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or whether results are ordered, which would add transparency.

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 wasted words. The primary function is stated first, followed by the usage guidance. 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?

Complete for a simple list tool with one optional parameter. The description covers what it does, why to use it, and the token dependency. No output schema exists, but the tool's simple purpose makes the return value obvious (a list of accounts).

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% (the only parameter 'limit' has a description and constraints). The description adds no new parameter details, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's note about finding the right account ID gives practical context, earning a 4.

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 the tool lists all ad accounts accessible with the current token, identifying both the verb ('List') and the resource ('ad accounts'). It also distinguishes its purpose — finding the right account ID — which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_campaigns or get_creative_performance.

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 instructs to use this tool first to find the correct account ID, establishing a clear usage sequence. While it doesn't name an alternative, it conveys when to use it in the workflow, which is sufficient guidance given that siblings operate on different resources.

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