wb_advert_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Ad campaigns with settings and bids' and enumerates statuses; it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned, whether pagination applies, or what limits exist beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loads the core resource. The status list is dense but directly relevant, and the Russian parenthetical adds localization context. There is little wasted text, though the missing action verb keeps it from being fully polished.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return shape and behavior; it mentions settings and bids and the schema covers all parameters, but pagination, response format, and the compact/full distinction are not described in the tool description itself. It is adequate for a simple optional-parameter list but not fully complete.

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 already documents ids, view, statuses, and payment_type, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the numeric status constants (9=active, 11=paused, 7=finished, 4=ready, 8=cancelled, -1=deleted), which are essential for correctly using the statuses filter and are absent from the schema.

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 concrete resource (ad campaigns) and the data it exposes (settings and bids), and the status list adds useful domain context. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve' and relies on the tool name to convey the operation, so it does not fully distinguish itself from sibling advert tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus wb_advert_count, wb_advert_stats, or other advert tools. The statuses mapping implies filtering use cases, but the description does not state when to choose this tool or when to prefer an alternative.

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