roasr_yandex_ads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, Yandex-only compatibility, and an error condition for non-Yandex accounts. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides, though it omits return-format details and pagination, keeping it from a 5.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key constraints ('Yandex Direct only, read-only'), then lists output fields concisely, gives use cases, and notes error behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no 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 5 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it lists output fields, use cases, and error behavior. It lacks an explicit return structure (e.g., 'returns array of ads') but the field list gives a solid picture. The default date window is in the schema, so the description remains sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the accountId error condition ('Errors if accountId points to a non-Yandex account') and framing parameters around a date window. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 identifies the tool as returning Yandex Direct ads with moderation status and metrics, listing specific fields (state/status/statusClarification, second headline, sitelinks, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Yandex Direct only' and the focus on ads, making its purpose 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to find rejected ads, or ads missing a second headline or link markup.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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