List RTB feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral signal is 'with state', hinting that returned feeds carry a state field, which is modest value beyond the annotations; no pagination, volume, or ordering context is given.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the scoping qualifier. Nothing is repeated and nothing extraneous is included.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers resource, scope, and the hint that state is included. It is essentially complete; only the relationship to sibling feed tools is left implicit.

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% and the single 'format' parameter already has an enum of popunder/sticker plus a description, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates that exactly one format scopes the listing, adding no format semantics or defaults.

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?

States a specific resource ('RTB demand feeds (DSP endpoints) of the account') with the scoping qualifier 'for one format, with state', so an agent can tell it lists feeds rather than fetching one. It does not explicitly name sibling get_rtb_feed or set_rtb_feed_state, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'of the account for one format' implies this is the enumeration entry point and that the caller must pick a format, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to get_rtb_feed for a single feed or set_rtb_feed_state for mutation. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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