Get Ad Account Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns 'roles', but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, authentication, or error handling. With annotations, the bar is lower, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 brief (two sentences plus arg list) and front-loaded with the action. The arg list uses 'Args:' which is efficient but less structured than bullet points. Overall, no wasted words.

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 read-only tool with annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (listing users with roles). However, it does not mention output format or pagination. Given low complexity, it is mostly complete.

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 50%: only 'ad_account_id' is described in the tool description (with an example), while 'response_format' is documented only in the input schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema for the covered parameter and ignores the other parameter.

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 it lists users with roles for an ad account, using a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('users who have access to an ad account'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'meta_get_ad_account' or 'meta_list_ad_accounts'.

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 implies usage context (getting users of an ad account) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No usage guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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