list_zone_ortb_native_ads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists ads, but fails to mention pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), ordering, or the structure of the returned data. The word 'all' is ambiguous given the default limit of 100, creating a subtle inconsistency.

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 wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and resource. This is an ideal length 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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with pagination parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what 'all' means in the context of limit, what the response format is, or whether there are any ordering guarantees. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context but does not.

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 schema descriptions for limit, offset, and zone_id already provide clear semantics (e.g., 'Max results to return (default 100, max 100)'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds only the qualifier 'standard zone,' which is a minor enhancement over the schema's 'Standard zone ID.' No significant new parameter meaning is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('ORTB native ads') and scope ('for a standard zone'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_zone_ortb_native_ad (singular) and list_ortb_native_image_assets (assets, not ads).

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where another listing tool (e.g., list_zones or list_ortb_native_templates) would be more appropriate. The description merely states what it does, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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