search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool searches and returns record IDs, and mentions cached token usage. However, it does not disclose any limits (e.g., result count, rate limits), response format details, or side effects. The behavior is adequately described but not rich.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example Usage sections. The purpose is front-loaded. However, the examples are somewhat repetitive and could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is appropriately sized and organized.

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 has only 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, but the description compensates well. It explains return value (list of record IDs) despite having an output schema. Given the simplicity, the description covers the essential context. However, for a tool with many siblings, additional guidance on scope would improve completeness.

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 provides clear, actionable descriptions for both parameters: 'query: Search query string to find relevant Meta Ads records' and 'access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)'. Examples further illustrate usage.

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 tool searches through Meta Ads data and returns matching record IDs. It specifies the range of entities (ad accounts, campaigns, ads, pages, businesses) and provides examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_interests or search_ads_archive which have more specific scopes.

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 for finding records across Meta Ads entities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_ads_archive, search_interests). No guidance on exclusions or alternatives is provided.

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