get_ad_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that amount_spent and balance are in currency units, but fails to disclose pagination behavior, error cases, token permission requirements, or data freshness. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns a list of sensitive financial data.

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 extremely concise: first sentence states purpose, then a note about behavior, then the parameter list. No filler words. The parameter list uses a clear 'name: explanation' format. Front-loaded with key information.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic semantics and a behavioral note (currency units). However, it omits important context like whether results are paginated, how to handle errors, or what happens when no ad accounts are available. The output schema exists but the description should still provide enough context for an agent to decide whether to call the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: access_token (optional, cached), user_id (default 'me'), limit (maximum accounts, default 200). This adds value beyond the schema's type annotations, but could be improved by clarifying the format of access_token or user_id.

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 'Get ad accounts accessible by a user', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ads and get_campaigns by focusing on ad accounts and user accessibility. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 when listing ad accounts for a user, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not scenarios. The presence of similar sibling tools (e.g., get_account_info) suggests differentiation is needed, but none is given.

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