get_ad_accounts

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 mentions optional caching for the access token and a default limit, which adds some context, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the token, or error handling. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose content.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a tool with no annotations, it should do more to explain operational aspects like safety or performance.

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 what the input schema provides (which has 0% coverage). 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 lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules.

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 easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_account_info' or 'get_account_pages', which might also retrieve account-related information, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_account_info' or 'search', leaving the agent to infer usage 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.