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 reveals that results are cached, pages are compact and bounded, cursors can become invalid, and that 'complete' has a specific meaning. This is substantial context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, though it doesn't cover rate limits or auth, which are less critical for a read-only list.

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 dense but well-organized: a clear opening statement, a focused paragraph on pagination and cursor semantics, and a final note on requirements and an example. Each sentence earns its place, though it is longer than the minimal case; the complexity justifies the length.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, caching, pagination, cursor behavior, search semantics, and the meaning of 'complete'. It omits output structure but that is not required without an output schema. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains limit (default 20, max 50), cursor (from previous response), and search (case-insensitive native id/name lookup), along with an example call. This gives agents the meaning they need without schema descriptions, effectively bridging the gap.

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 the tool lists cached TikTok ad accounts (advertisers) for the authenticated tenant, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the joined owner_bc_name field, which is distinctive. While it references a Meta MCP counterpart, the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling asset_list_* tools by its explicit focus on ad accounts.

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 provides detailed pagination instructions (follow next_cursor until complete=true, restart on rejected cursor) and clarifies that 'complete' refers to pagination, not sync coverage or permissions. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other asset listing tools; the name and context make it obvious, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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