list_ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: single-page semantics, no auto-pagination, reliance on an unchanged opaque offset token, and account resolution via the TELEGRAM_ADS_ACCOUNT_ID environment variable — none of which appear in structured fields.

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?

Each of the four short blocks addresses one decision the caller must make (page fetching, pagination behavior, targeting payload, account resolution) and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the pagination and account-defaulting behaviors an agent must know to call this correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on limit's effect or default.

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 carries the burden, and it does for three of four parameters: offset must be the returned next_offset verbatim, account_id falls back to an env var then the token owner's account, and return_target toggles inclusion of targeting settings. Only limit is left unexplained, though its 1-100 bounds are visible in 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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope statement: 'Get one page of ads from an account.' The 'one page' qualifier immediately distinguishes it from a full-listing or single-record retrieval tool such as get_ads_by_id, so the agent can select it without inspecting the schema.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: how to fetch subsequent pages ('pass the returned next_offset unchanged as offset'), that pagination is not automatic, and when to set return_target. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_ads_by_id or get_ads_stats, so the when-to-use-versus-siblings dimension is only implied.

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