list_business_ad_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only mentions a prerequisite (META_BUSINESS_ID env var) and does not state that this is a read-only operation, describe pagination behavior, or note any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, direct sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key requirement. No unnecessary words or redundant information. It is exemplary in conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (3 optional parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned the return structure (e.g., paginated list, fields included) to help the agent understand expected results. For a list tool, this is a modest gap.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (after, limit, fields), so the schema already covers parameter semantics. The description adds no additional value beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline scoring.

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 action (List), the resource (ad accounts), and the scope (owned by the configured business). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ad_accounts and get_ad_account, providing an unambiguous purpose.

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 indicates a specific context: it lists ad accounts owned by the configured business, and the META_BUSINESS_ID env var requirement clarifies when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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