list_placements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the core action. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether archived placements are included, how results are ordered, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that directly states purpose with no filler or repetition. It earns its place efficiently.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks crucial context such as the distinction from other placement-list tools, filtering capabilities, ordering, and whether archived items are included. The presence of multiple sibling list variants makes this ambiguity more problematic, leaving the description incomplete for reliable selection.

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 already documents both parameters (limit and offset) with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 the tool lists placements and defines what a placement is (assignments of ad items to zones). It conveys the verb, resource, and scope ('all'). However, it does not differentiate this from similarly named sibling tools like vast_list_placements or draft_list_placements, so it's not fully distinguishing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as vast_list_placements or draft_list_placements. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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