snap_list_creatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it in text while adding two behaviors annotations cannot express: full pagination ('Reads every page') and truncation disclosure ('a note says when the list is cut'). It still does not say anything about rate limits or result ordering.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts (resource, read-only, pagination completeness). The '(read-only)' parenthetical is partly redundant with the annotation but is defensible as reinforcement.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it only partially does: it explains pagination and the truncation note but never says which creative fields come back or what the note looks like. For a simple three-parameter lister it is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 only 33% — just name_contains is documented in the schema. The description weakly implies ad_account_id via 'in an ad account' but says nothing about the limit parameter's default, maximum, or its pagination interaction, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List creatives') and scopes it to an ad account, which distinguishes it from the ad/adquad/campaign listers in the sibling set. It does not explicitly contrast with snap_list_ads or snap_clone_creative, but the resource noun is 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 clause 'so you can see what can be reused' implies a discovery/pre-clone use case, which is useful context. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., cloning or fetching a single creative), so selection still relies on inference.

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