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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, but the description adds important behavioral detail beyond them: which asset types return text fields, which only return linking metadata, and the caveat that an empty linked_to does not mean unlinked because ad-group links are not included. It also discloses that each link carries ENABLED/PAUSED/REMOVED status.

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 first sentence front-loads the core operation, and every subsequent line adds useful filtering, return-shape, or linking semantics. There is 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still provides important context about result differences by asset_type and linked_to caveats. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries the full parameter burden. It lists all asset_type values and explains the workspace parameter's optional behavior when only one workspace exists, adding meaning not present in 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing extension assets with approval status and links. It also names the tool whose toggled status values are exposed (ads_set_asset_link_status), helping separate this read operation from link-management siblings.

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 clearly explains the asset_type filter values and notes that workspace is optional when only one workspace exists. It also links the returned status values to ads_set_asset_link_status, giving practical context for follow-up actions, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other list tools.

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