List ad placement performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose free-account availability and that the operation returns rows. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor mention side effects, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loads the key purpose in the first sentence. The field lists are somewhat long but directly support the purpose by showing what varies by ad type, so they earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of the per-type fields is helpful. Yet it stops short of giving a complete result shape, including field types, ordering, or pagination, so an agent still has to infer some details about the response.

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 both parameters with descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about output fields per type but does not add additional meaning to the 'type' or 'status' parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'ad placement (post)', then enumerates the performance fields for each ad type. This clearly distinguishes list_posts from the sibling type-specific tools like list_links and list_banners by presenting it as the cross-type listing operation.

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 that this tool is the general list for all ad placement types by enumerating banner, link, YouTube, and press-release fields, but it never explicitly says to prefer this over sibling tools or when to use a type-specific list. Usage guidance is therefore only implicit.

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