ads_module_call

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It omits critical behavior for a generic dispatcher: the forwarded call could be read or destructive, there's no disclosure of error/failure behavior, timeout semantics, or result shape. Only the allow_tools restriction hint is offered, leaving side-effect ambiguity unresolved.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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 meta-tool that proxies arbitrary module calls with a free-form arguments object and no output schema, the definition should explain how to obtain valid module/tool identifiers and what arguments should contain. Those essentials are missing, making it inadequate given the tool's complexity.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The most important gap is the free-form nested 'arguments' object, which is clearly a payload forwarded to the target tool but is never explained, nor are module_id, tool_name, or the timeout_ms bounds.

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?

States a specific action — calling a tool on a configured provider MCP module — and adds a scope qualifier about the allow_tools restriction. It distinguishes itself from the many SDK-native ads_* tools by positioning this as the escape hatch for capabilities AdsMCP does not reimplement, though it doesn't name the related discovery tools.

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 line 'Use provider-native tools for capabilities that AdsMCP does not reimplement' gives implied context for when to reach for this proxy. However, it never names the companion discovery tool (ads_module_tools) that an agent would need to find a valid module_id/tool_name, and gives no explicit when-not or alternatives.

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