ad_manager_fb_get_reporting_list

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

The annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so no contradiction exists. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default date ranges, or result format. With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains, but it does not.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and essentially repeats the tool name. It does not earn its place because it provides no unique information beyond the schema, making it more of a placeholder than a useful definition.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and many similarly named siblings, this description is drastically incomplete. It gives no indication of what the tool returns, what list types are supported, or how it relates to other reporting tools, leaving agents without critical information 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters like listType or campaignId, but since the schema is complete, no penalty is applied. The description neither clarifies nor conflicts with the parameter definitions.

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 'Get reporting list' is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name, providing no additional detail about what constitutes a 'reporting list' or how it differs from similar siblings like ad_manager_fb_get_reporting or ad_manager_google_get_reporting_list. It fails to specify the platform, scope, or nature of the list, making it a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many comparable alternatives, such as ad_manager_google_get_reporting_list or ad_manager_fb_get_campaign_reporting. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which reporting list tool is appropriate.

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