list_ad_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The qualifier 'accessibles' discloses a genuine behavioral trait — the list is scoped by token access, so accounts may be omitted — and 'Liste' implies a read-only operation. But it does not state what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, or any error/edge behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste: verb first, then resource, then purpose. Every word earns its place and the purpose clause adds value without bloat.

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 zero-param list tool with an output schema, the description covers the what and a hint of the why, and the output schema handles return format. However, it omits sibling routing and auth/permission expectations, and the 'audiences' context is vague about which audience-related workflow this feeds into. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the schema carries all param information and nothing is missing. With 0 params the baseline is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail that doesn't exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('comptes publicitaires') and adds a purpose ('nécessaire aux audiences'). It clearly states what the tool does and orients an agent toward the ad-account domain, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling audience-related tools such as list_custom_audiences or get_page_audience.

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 phrase '(nécessaire aux audiences)' implies the tool is a prerequisite when working with audiences, providing some usage context. However, it names no alternatives, states no when-not-to-use conditions, and leaves the agent to infer the difference between ad accounts, pages, and custom audiences from sibling names alone.

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