draft_list_ad_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all draft ad items across all types' without mentioning pagination behavior, return format, or whether this includes all statuses or only drafts. The verb 'List' implies read-only, but the description adds minimal context beyond the tool name.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no extraneous information, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 the tool is a straightforward list operation with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly communicates the core purpose and scope, but it does not provide additional context about what 'draft' entails, whether this returns only active drafts, or how results are ordered. This is a gap, but not a severe one for such a simple tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (limit and offset), each with a description. The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail, but since the schema already documents them, the baseline score 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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('draft ad items'), and a scope ('across all types'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like draft_list_image_ad_items or draft_list_rich_media_ad_items, which are type-specific. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 the tool should be used to retrieve all draft ad items regardless of type, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the many type-specific draft list siblings (e.g., draft_list_image_ad_items). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implicit.

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