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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'List' and gives the resource scope. It does not mention pagination behavior, output shape, whether an ad account ID is required, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.

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 15-word sentence with no filler and front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It omits pagination/cursor usage, filter semantics, and the shape of the returned asset list, leaving an agent to guess at invocation and expected results.

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 descriptions cover 0% of the 4 parameters, so the free-text description must compensate. It weakly hints at type_filter via 'images and videos' and at ad_account_id via 'ad account asset library', but it does not explain limit, cursor, type_filter, or ad_account_id semantics.

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 a clear verb ('List') and names a specific resource: uploaded Meta creative images and videos in the ad account asset library. It is distinguishable from the Google sibling by the 'Meta' qualifier, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with closely named tools like adsap_list_meta_assets.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as adsap_list_meta_assets, adsap_get_creative_performance, or adsap_google_list_creative_assets. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or prerequisite notes.

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