list_ad_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing and that results depend on the authenticated token's access. However, it does not mention pagination, response shape details, or any limits, which would add useful behavioral context for a no-output-schema 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the key downstream use of the returned ids. Every word contributes to agent decision-making.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, authentication scope, and the primary use of the return value. Because there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response format or pagination would improve completeness, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, including a clear explanation that it is a header override rarely needed. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but since the schema already documents it fully, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('ad accounts'), and adds meaningful scope: accounts accessible to the authenticated key/OAuth token. It also states the returned ids are meant for use as ad_account_id in other tools, which clearly distinguishes this listing tool from account-specific tools like get_ad_account.

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 clearly implies this tool is for discovering which ad accounts the current credentials can access and for obtaining ids to pass to other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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