Top ad creatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: responses are large and asset-URL heavy, which justifies the fields/limit advice. It does not mention request cost/credits (only the schema does, via dry_run), so the addition is real but thin.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose first, actionable tuning advice second. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 12-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs to know up front: what the endpoint returns and that responses must be trimmed. Missing pagination behavior and cost framing are minor since the schema documents page/dry_run.

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 67%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds only a rationale for two of twelve parameters (fields, limit) and says nothing about date, period, country, page, or ad_types, leaving the partial coverage gap only partly compensated.

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?

States a specific resource (ad creatives) with a clear scope qualifier ('most-seen', 'for a network and category'), which separates it from siblings like sensortower_top_advertisers and sensortower_search_ads. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, 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 advice to 'use fields/limit aggressively' is operational tuning, not selection guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sensortower_top_advertisers or sensortower_raw_get, and no prerequisites (e.g. that network/category/date are mandatory) are called out.

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