search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'matching record IDs' and searches across multiple entity types, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements beyond the optional access_token, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what format the record IDs take. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context.

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 clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, return information, and relevant examples. It's appropriately sized at 7 sentences, though the example usage section could be more concise by combining similar queries. Most sentences earn their place by adding value.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like authentication details, search scope limitations, or error scenarios. For a search tool with multiple sibling alternatives, more guidance would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'query' is explained as a 'search query string to find relevant Meta Ads records' with example queries, and 'access_token' is described as 'Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail query syntax or token requirements.

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 searches through Meta Ads data and returns matching record IDs, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'Meta Ads data'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'search_ads_archive' or 'search_interests' by mentioning it searches across multiple entity types (ad accounts, campaigns, ads, pages, businesses), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all search-related siblings.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'to find relevant records based on the provided query' and example queries, suggesting it's for general Meta Ads searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_ads_archive' or 'search_pages_by_name', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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