Креативы

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the description agrees with them. It adds that the response contains smart banners/HTML5 from the creative library, but does not disclose return-format details, pagination behavior, or authentication expectations, so it adds only modest behavior context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The main action and object are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds useful type detail without bloat.

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?

This is a simple read-only list operation with zero required parameters and fully described optional parameters, so the description plus schema is sufficient for safe invocation. It is not a 5 because the absence of an output schema means the description could have added a note about what fields a creative object contains or explicitly addressed when this tool should be used instead of get_ad_images/get_ad_videos.

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%, so the parameters (ids, limit, offset) are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning or constraints, which corresponds to the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies a read operation ('Возвращает список') on a specific resource type ('креативов') and adds the sub-types 'смарт-баннеры, HTML5' and source 'библиотека креативов'. This makes the tool's purpose obvious, though it does not explicitly contrast it with nearby sibling tools such as get_ad_images or get_ad_videos.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives and names no sibling tools or exclusions. An agent can only infer that it should be used when a list of creatives is needed, but the description does not say so.

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