get_ad_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers well. It explicitly discloses that amount_spent and balance are in currency units (not cents), that access_token is optional and uses a cached token, and that fetch_all controls pagination behavior, which are key behavioral traits beyond the basic functional statement.

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: a brief summary sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool has four optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: the core functionality, parameter meanings, and important behavioral details like currency units and pagination. It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

Since the input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates fully. It explains every parameter: access_token (with caching behavior), user_id (including 'me'), limit (with default), and fetch_all (with pagination semantics). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property definitions.

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's purpose: 'Get ad accounts accessible by a user.' This specifies the action (get), the resource (ad accounts), and the scope (accessible by a user). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_account_info or get_ad_details, which focus on specific accounts or ads.

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 provides clear context for use: it explains the tool lists ad accounts for a user, with optional token caching and pagination control. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_account_info or get_account_pages, so agents might not know when to choose this over those tools. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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