list_experiments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and 'for the ad account' scopes the action. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (beyond 'after' param) or any other side effects. It adds some context but lacks depth.

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?

A single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words 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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, and the description gives the essential purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state the return format or further detail on pagination/fields, which could be useful. It's a minimally viable description for a list operation.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description adds resource context but no additional parameter-specific details, matching the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the action (List), the resource (A/B test experiments/ad studies), and the scope (ad account). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_experiment (singular) and create_experiment.

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 implies usage by stating it lists experiments for the ad account, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use get_experiment for a single experiment) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It's a clear but minimal usage statement.

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