list_rf_predictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pagination behavior, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive or mention any required permissions. The 'List' verb implies safety, but the description could be more transparent about side effects (or lack thereof) and access requirements.

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 two concise sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the pagination behavior as a brief second sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists (reach & frequency predictions for the ad account) and pagination. It does not detail the return shape, but this is less critical since the 'fields' parameter allows selection and the sibling get_rf_prediction likely describes the object structure.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (after, limit, fields), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving the schema to carry parameter documentation entirely.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List') and resource ('reach & frequency predictions for the ad account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_rf_prediction, create_rf_prediction, and delete_rf_prediction. The verb and target are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it lists all RF predictions for the ad account and notes pagination. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of get_rf_prediction or other list tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. This is clear context but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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