list_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List automated rules' implying a read operation, but does not detail pagination behavior, default result count, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The presence of 'after' and 'limit' parameters hints at pagination, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It is efficient and contains no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'automated rules' contain, what the response format is (no output schema), or whether the results are paginated by default. Given the sibling tools and parameter schema, the agent can infer some context, but the description alone leaves gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains their purpose. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, such as what fields are available or how pagination works. Thus, it meets the baseline for good schema coverage but adds no additional value.

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 a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'automated rules for the ad account,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rule (single rule) and create_rule. It clearly states the scope (ad account) and the action, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like needing to view all rules, nor does it contrast with get_rule or other listing tools. The context is minimal and implied only by the tool's name and sibling list.

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