wafle_ads_anomalies_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context about the cron detector (every 30 minutes), the fields included, and the notification behavior with cooldown, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second paragraph adds useful context without fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what anomalies include and the underlying detection cadence. It lacks a detailed return format, but the field enumeration partially covers it. Overall, reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 43%, and the description compensates by listing the possible values for 'kind' (cpa_spike, roas_break, etc.) and mentioning severity and scope. However, it doesn't explain parameters like 'since', 'acknowledged', or pagination, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'List ads anomalies detected by the cron-driven detector', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on anomalies, a unique concept among the listed 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool to read raw history', giving a clear use case. It doesn't name alternatives, but the context of anomaly detection history is enough to differentiate from other wafle_ads tools.

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