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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only, free' is consistent and adds minimal behavioral insight. The description adds context about the two data sources and the filtering behavior, but does not disclose any additional traits like ordering or rate limits. The transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond 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 three sentences long, with no redundant information. The first sentence uses abstract jargon ('Structural references for script-led Heists') but the rest is clear and directly explains sources and operations. The structure is front-loaded with key information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions the sources (workspace decodes and official ads) but does not describe the response structure, fields, or ordering. For a listing tool with 5 parameters, this lack of output context leaves the agent uncertain about the return format, making it moderately complete.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by grouping the mutually exclusive filters and noting their relationship to the in-app library lens, and by summarizing pagination with limit and offset. This contextual grouping helps the agent understand parameter interactions, going beyond individual 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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists decoded ad presets from two sources (workspace and official), and the title confirms 'List Decoded ads'. The verb is implicit but clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_decoded_ad_preset' and 'fleet_search_decoded_ads' by specifying the scope and filtering options, though the jargon 'Structural references for script-led Heists' slightly obscures the core function.

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 explains the mutually exclusive filters (only_workspace / only_official) and pagination (limit, offset), which guides usage. It mentions the 'same toggle as the in-app library lens', providing contextual understanding. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search or single-get alternatives, though the context of listing vs. searching is implied.

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