List ad source adapters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about returned content (adapter ID and config keys) but doesn't mention pagination or other behavioral details. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list operation, but not exceptionally rich.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It conveys the action, scope, and key output without any filler 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?

For a simple list tool with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the return value essentials. It misses explicit pagination behavior, but the schema already includes pageToken/pageSize. The connection to create_ad_unit_mapping adds practical context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for adSourceId, pageSize, and pageToken. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists adapters of a mediation ad source, with specific output details (adapter ID and required configuration keys). It distinguishes from siblings like list_ad_sources and list_ad_unit_mappings by focusing on adapters and linking to create_ad_unit_mapping.

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 phrase 'needed for create_ad_unit_mapping' provides strong contextual guidance on when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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