get_ads_command_status

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, the enumerated status lifecycle, the meaning and risk of the interrupted 'unknown' state, and the presence of error and undo data. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then consequences; the long parenthetical on 'unknown' earns its place because it prevents a double-write. Slightly dense and em-dash-heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields (status, timestamps, error, undo) and ordering. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Pass id for a single command' reinforces but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apple Ads commands for one app's campaigns') and distinguishes itself from get_ads_campaigns, get_ads_keywords and confirm_action by scoping to the command/status log. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explains where the commands come from (dashboard, automation rules, confirm_action) and gives actionable guidance for the 'unknown' state — check Apple Ads before resending. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for other needs, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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