Список объявлений (banners)

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by explaining that moderation_status and delivery indicate why an ad is or is not shown, which helps interpret the returned data. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or response structure, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and filter options, while the second adds interpretive value about the response fields. It is compact, clear, and well structured.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters, the description provides the essential purpose and clarifies two important response fields. There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for explaining returned objects, which it partially does via moderation_status and delivery. It could be more explicit about pagination or the general response shape, but the schema's autoPaginate, limit, and offset parameters already signal pagination, making the description reasonably complete.

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 100%, meaning all 7 parameters are already documented in the input schema with descriptions and constraints (e.g., limit maximum 250, offset minimum 0, statuses enum). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the filter categories. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Возвращает список banner' (returns a list of banners) and clarifies that a banner is an ad/creative object in VK Ads. It names the main filter dimensions (id, parent ad group, status), which helps distinguish it from sibling list tools for ad plans or ad groups. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use list_banners versus list_ad_groups, list_ad_plans, or other alternatives. The description implies its use by naming the resource and filtering options, but it does not state when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or context that would route an agent to this tool over siblings. This is a clear gap.

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