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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds worthwhile context about scope (this workspace only) and returned fields, including 'real link clicks', which hints that other metrics may be less direct. It says nothing about ordering behavior or what happens when the workspace is empty.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, and the second sentence is pure usage guidance. Nothing is redundant with the schema or the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return fields, and it does so explicitly. Minor gaps remain around truncation and whether the result indicates more ads exist beyond the limit, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 100% for the single limit parameter, including default 20 and max 50 with newest-first ordering. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (the ads in this Promptify workspace) and enumerates exactly what each entry carries: title, status, format, language, export flag, and real link clicks. That field list distinguishes it from get_ad (single ad) and get_ad_stats, though it never names those 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?

Gives concrete usage triggers: answering 'what have I made' and picking an ad to talk about. The second trigger implicitly routes toward a downstream single-ad lookup, but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives telling the agent when NOT to use this list.

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