Get account ad network report summary

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), lowering the burden. The description contributes genuinely new context: 'Reads account data' confirms the access scope, and 'OAuth integrations require posts:read' discloses a required permission scope that appears nowhere in the annotations or schema. Only return-shape behavior is left unstated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding or filler. The only redundancy is the title-echoing opening sentence, but overall it is tight and appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 read-only report tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the access scope and auth requirement. However, it omits what the summary actually contains and how it differs from its near-duplicate siblings, leaving real ambiguity an agent could resolve incorrectly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (account, start_date, end_date) are already fully documented with format and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning on top of that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence is a near-verbatim restatement of the title and name ('Get account ad network report summary'), so it identifies the verb and resource but adds no information beyond the tool's own name. It also fails to distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings such as ad_network_reports_summary and list_ad_network_reports. Purpose is inferable but not meaningfully clarified.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the very similar siblings ad_network_reports_summary or list_ad_network_reports. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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