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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that an X-Mako-Key header is required, that only the newest version of each concept is returned, and that downloadable image links are included. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 tight sentences with no filler: first the return contents, then the versioning behavior, then the downstream usage and auth requirement. Each sentence earns its place and the most useful information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, versioning, downstream usage, and authentication. The only minor gap is that variant_id is referenced in the usage guidance but not explicitly listed among the returned fields, though the context makes it clear it is part of the output.

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 for the single parameter run_id is 100%, and its description already explains where the id comes from (get_status or run_may). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the ad concepts from a May run') and enumerates the returned fields: headline, primary text, call to action, compliance status, and image download link. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_meta_assets or list_deliverables, which target different resources.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for retrieving ad concepts from a May run, and it explicitly instructs the agent to use the resulting variant_id values with build_paused_campaign. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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