list_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It only states 'List ads' and the optional filters, which are already evident from the schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default field selection, or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then mentions optional filters. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention pagination (despite 'after' and 'limit' parameters) or explain the return format. However, the schema covers the parameters, so the description is not critically deficient.

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 restates the filter parameters (campaign, ad set, status) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'ads' and defines scope as 'in the ad account.' It also mentions optional filters (campaign, ad set, status), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_campaign_ads or get_adset_ads that target specific entities.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to list ads in the ad account, with optional filtering by campaign, ad set, or status. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for account-level listing.

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