search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns matching record IDs, searches across multiple entity types, and clarifies that access_token is optional and uses a cached token if not provided. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not cover potential limitations like result limits or pagination.

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 a concise intro, Args, Returns, and Example Usage sections. The example usage includes five queries, which is slightly repetitive but useful for illustrating query variety. Overall, it is efficient and not verbose.

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's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, return type, and examples. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, or error behavior, which are minor gaps.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining 'query' as 'Search query string to find relevant Meta Ads records' and 'access_token' as optional with cached-token behavior. This adds clear semantic value beyond the plain schema, though it could provide more detail on query syntax or constraints.

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 function: 'Search through Meta Ads data and return matching record IDs.' It specifies the resource (Meta Ads data) and scope (across ad accounts, campaigns, ads, pages, and businesses), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_pages_by_name or search_ads_archive.

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 through examples like 'search(query="active campaigns")' and 'search(query="facebook pages")', implying it is a broad cross-entity search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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