list_ortb_native_title_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety and behavioral traits. It says 'List all' but doesn't confirm read-only status, pagination behavior (the schema includes limit/offset), or response format. The term 'all' is ambiguous given pagination defaults, and no side effects or error conditions are mentioned, leaving a transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for a 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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining context. It covers the core purpose but omits pagination nuances, response shape, and validation requirements for template_id. It is adequate for a basic list tool but leaves clear gaps in operational 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?

The input schema describes all three parameters (template_id, limit, offset) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but the schema already documents the semantics fully, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states 'List all title assets for an ORTB native template' – a specific verb (list) with a clear resource (title assets) and scope (per template). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ortb_native_title_asset (single asset) and create/update/delete title asset tools, as well as other asset-type list tools.

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 'list all' phrasing implies use when multiple title assets are needed for a template, which differentiates it from the single-getter sibling. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_ortb_native_title_asset instead), so it lacks an explicit when-to-use comparison.

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