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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the auth scope needed (ads.read) and the cursor-based pagination loop, both of which an agent must know before calling.

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 sentences, zero waste: the core behavior and returned fields come first, then the pagination mechanic, then the prerequisite. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, and the description covers the remaining essentials: auth scope, pagination, and account scoping. The only shortfall is the unresolved overlap with postly_list_campaigns, which an agent would have to guess about.

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 75% and the three required IDs already document their provenance from postly_list_ad_accounts. The description fills the one gap by explaining that 'next' from a prior response is passed as the cursor, adding semantics the schema's bare 'cursor: string' lacks.

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?

Specific verb (lists) plus resource (native campaigns in a connected ad account) and names the fields returned (status, budget, dates). The word 'native' distinguishes it somewhat from postly_list_campaigns, but the description never explicitly says how the two differ, leaving the sibling routing partly to inference.

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?

It states the prerequisite ('Requires ads.read') and explains pagination ('Pass next as cursor to load more'), which are useful usage cues. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus postly_list_campaigns or postly_get_campaign, so alternative selection is only implied by the word 'native'.

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