ads_network_platform_report

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 usefully discloses that the report is anonymous and that no credentials are sent, which are important behavioral traits. However, it omits what happens after reporting, whether the report is public or queued for review, permission requirements, and any side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words, and the privacy constraint is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the information given, though it could be slightly more structured around parameter meanings.

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 a seven-parameter write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and anonymity but leaves critical gaps around parameter semantics and what the tool returns or triggers.

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 tool has seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, but the description does not explain any of them. Fields like url, kind, notes, region, and capabilities receive no semantic guidance, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('new advertising platform or integration candidate'), making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ads_network_platform_list or ads_integration_register, but the purpose is still understandable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing existing platforms or registering an integration. The note 'No credentials are sent' is a constraint, not a usage guideline, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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