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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'deterministic', reinforcing idempotency. However, it does not explain what 'drafting' entails operationally, whether the results are cached, or any side effects of repeated calls. Given the strong annotation coverage, the description adds some but not extensive behavioral 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?

A single sentence that is concise and to the point. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and inputs. However, it omits necessary detail (e.g., output description, parameter formats) that could be added without significant verbosity. The structure is acceptable for a simple tool but front-loads the essential information.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'context_hints' are, how they relate to an ad group, or what the tool returns. A user would likely need additional documentation to understand the tool's full behavior and inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the four parameter names (product, audience, intent, keywords) but provides no additional semantics: no data types, formats, allowed values, or examples. 'keywords' has an empty JSON schema type (likely an object) but is not clarified. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaningful detail beyond the names.

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 verb 'draft' and resource 'context_hints' clearly indicate the action and output. The description specifies inputs from product, audience, intent, and keywords, making the core function unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ad_group' or 'manage_conversions', though the scope is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where drafting context hints is appropriate. Sibling tools exist (e.g., 'get_ad_group', 'manage_conversions') but no comparisons are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable context: the tool verifies the API key and reads specific fields (account id, name, timezone, currency, settings). This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then provides usage instructions. Every sentence adds 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it names the action, the purpose, and the specific returned fields. No gaps given the simplicity.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (0 parameters). The description compensates by listing the returned fields, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 it retrieves the authenticated OpenAI Ads account, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'account'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_ad, get_campaign, etc., which target different resources.

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 advises to use this tool first to verify the API key works, providing clear usage context. No alternatives exist since it's the only account retrieval tool, but the guidance on when to use is specific and helpful.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing included fields (review_status, creative metadata), which is beyond basic retrieval.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Directly communicates purpose and output 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what it does and what fields are returned. Could mention response format but not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states the parameter is the ad's ID, which is minimal. No format, constraints, or source information provided, but for a single string parameter, this meets the baseline.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'ad' with scope 'one ad by id', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_ads. It also specifies included content (review_status, creative metadata).

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 use case: to retrieve a single ad by ID. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tool list_ads provides a clear contrasting use case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but does not conflict. Missing info on error behavior (e.g., what if id not found).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return values or edge cases, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'ad_group_id' parameter (e.g., format, example, or meaning). It adds no value beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 action ('get'), the resource ('ad group'), and the identifier method ('by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ad_groups (which returns multiple) and get_ad (different resource).

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 (e.g., list_ad_groups for multiple ad groups). It lacks exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey, such as what the response contains or authorization requirements.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the required parameter, costing a point.

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 simple get-by-id tool with strong annotations, the description is adequate. However, it lacks mention of return value structure or any context about where the audience ID originates, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only says 'by id' without explaining the format, source, or constraints of the audience_id parameter. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Get one custom audience by id' clearly specifies the verb (Get), the resource (custom audience), and the selection criteria (by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_audiences (which retrieves multiple) and get_account (different entity).

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 when you have an audience ID and need its details, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_audiences) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them.

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 very concise, using only 5 words in one sentence. However, it is almost too brief and could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, many siblings), the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how it differs from similar retrieval tools like get_ad.

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 for the only parameter (campaign_id) is 0%, and the description does not explain parameter meaning, format, or constraints. It adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'campaign', and the method 'by id'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_campaigns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_campaigns or search_geo. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by disclosing supported features (fields, filters, sort, segments, time ranges, cursor pagination), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently lists features. Could be improved with bullet points for readability, but minimal waste. Appropriate length for the complexity.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description provides high-level context but lacks details on output structure, parameter formats, or required scope usage. Sufficient for basic understanding but not for precise invocation.

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 for 12 parameters, the description mentions several capabilities (fields, filters, segments, etc.) but does not map to parameter names or explain formats (e.g., how to specify time_range or segments). Partially compensates but leaves many parameters undefined.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get performance insights' and lists scopes (account, campaign, ad group, ad), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve single entities. However, it could be more specific about the type of insights (e.g., metrics).

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 use for aggregated performance data vs. entity retrieval, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives like get_account or list_campaigns. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds no behavioral context beyond the filter option mentioned in schema. No contradictions.

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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded with purpose. However, given the tool has 5 parameters including pagination, the description is underspecified and could benefit from more structure.

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?

No output schema, and description does not hint at what the response contains (e.g., list of ad group objects). Missing pagination context for after/before parameters, which are crucial for list operations.

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 0%. Description only references 'campaign_id' implicitly. Does not explain pagination parameters (limit, after, before) or ordering (order). Fails to compensate for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb (list), resource (ad groups), and condition (optionally filtered to a campaign). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ads or list_campaigns by specifying the resource type.

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?

Implied usage: use to list ad groups. No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. Adequate but minimal.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'list ads', such as sorting, filtering, or pagination behavior.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it lacks critical information, making it under-informative rather than appropriately concise.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is incomplete. It omits pagination, ordering, and limit behavior.

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 0%. The description fails to explain any of the 5 parameters (ad_group_id, limit, after, before, order). No additional meaning provided.

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 verb (list) and resource (ads) with a specific scope (in an ad group). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ad (single ad) and list_ad_groups.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_ad, get_ad_group). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds the authentication scope but does not disclose pagination behavior, data freshness, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. Minimal extra value.

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?

Very short sentence, no wasted words. However, it lacks important details about parameters and usage, making it under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of audience objects) but does not. Missing pagination behavior and ordering semantics.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation for parameters (limit, after, before, order). Agent must rely solely on parameter names and types without semantic clues.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'custom audiences', and scope 'for the authenticated ad account'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling 'get_audience' by implying a list operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like 'get_audience'. Does not mention when not to use or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds cursor pagination detail, which is a behavioral trait not in annotations. Missing information about rate limits or authentication details, but annotations cover safety.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value; no filler.

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?

No output schema, no parameter descriptions. The description only gives high-level purpose and pagination method. For a 4-parameter list tool, return fields and default behavior are not described, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description implies after/before are cursor tokens via 'cursor pagination', but does not explain any parameter explicitly. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 lists campaigns in the authenticated ad account. The mention of cursor pagination adds specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign (single) and list_ads/list_ad_groups (different resource).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_campaign for a single campaign or search tools. The description is purely declarative without usage context.

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

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

Annotations already provide behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns IDs usable in campaign targeting, which is useful context but does not significantly expand beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence of about 15 words, no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more efficient or structured, but it is generally concise.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's purpose and output usage but lacks details on query format, possible response, or types of geo targets. For a straightforward search tool, it is barely sufficient.

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 schema has one parameter 'query' with 0% coverage (no description). The tool description does not specify what the query should contain (e.g., a location name, coordinate, or code). This leaves the agent with little guidance on how to form a valid query, despite the low schema coverage burden.

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 geo targets for the specific purpose of obtaining IDs for campaign targeting's targeting.locations.include. It uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'geo targets', and the output is explicitly stated as 'ids usable in campaign targeting'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on different resources like accounts, ads, and audiences.

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 when to use the tool: when you need geo target IDs for targeting.locations.include in campaign targeting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. The sibling tools are all different in purpose, so the context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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