get_ad_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional token caching and default values, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (beyond the token), rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose and parameters more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth, limits) and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps for a read operation in a crowded toolset.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage (titles only). It explains that 'access_token' is optional with caching, 'user_id' can be 'me' for the current user, and 'limit' has a default of 200. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, providing clear usage context without redundancy.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ad accounts accessible by a user'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_info' or 'get_account_pages', which might also retrieve account-related information, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_account_info', 'get_account_pages'), there's no indication of how this tool differs in context, such as whether it's for ad-specific accounts or general user accounts, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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