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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure by itself. 'Bounded page' helpfully signals that the result is paginated/truncated, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, rate limits, or how the page can be advanced; these gaps matter because no annotations are present.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase ('bounded page', 'for one customer') earns its place.

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 two-parameter list tool with fully documented schema fields, the description covers the core action, scope, and pagination behavior. It does not spell out output shape or authentication, but the simple operation and schema metadata are sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'one customer' and 'bounded page' summarize the parameters but add no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions of customer_id and limit/truncation metadata.

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 opens with the verb 'List' and names the exact resource ('Google Ads creative assets'), plus the customer scope and paged boundary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as google_ads_video_uploads_list or google_ads_product_cards_list, which target different resource types.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many sibling list/prepare/confirm tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or a when-not-to-use condition; the only context is the tool name and the 'one customer' scope.

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