List banners

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the operation (returns active banners owned by the user) and the access requirement (free accounts), but doesn't mention response format, pagination, error behavior, or side effects. For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Returns all active banner ads owned by the authenticated user') and then add the key access condition. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

Given the lack of parameters and output schema, the description is largely complete for a list operation. It specifies the resource scope, ownership, and access level. Minor omissions like pagination or ordering are not critical for such a simple tool, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, leaving nothing for the description to add. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets that without unnecessary parameter-related content.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('all active banner ads') with clear ownership ('owned by the authenticated user'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (list_links, list_youtube_ads, etc.) by specifying the resource type and 'active' status.

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 provides clear context (for banner ads) and an important access guideline ('Does not require a paid membership; available to free accounts too'), which tells agents when this tool is usable. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the resource-type specificity makes the intended use obvious.

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