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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the returned fields and reuse context, but it does not disclose list behavior, pagination, limits, or whether all creatives are returned.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler; the field list is presented parenthetically. It is slightly fragmentary but front-loads the resource and purpose.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich schema and annotations, the description supplies the resource, purpose, and returned fields. It still omits pagination/limit behavior and does not clarify whether results are scoped to the account or folder beyond what the schema says.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the ad-account scope and adds no syntax or selection semantics for folder, search, account, or language.

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 names the resource (creatives) and the fields returned, and the phrase 'to reuse in new ads' distinguishes it from creation tools like snapchat_create_creative. However, it does not explicitly say 'list' or name the sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage by saying the creatives are 'to reuse in new ads,' which points to selecting an existing creative. It does not state when not to use it or name snapchat_create_creative as the alternative for new creative creation, so guidance is only implied.

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