Список объявлений

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already carry the safety profile, and the description's 'Возвращает список' is fully consistent with these. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not mention pagination behavior (limit, offset, autoPaginate semantics), default response size, or behavior when no filters are provided. It neither contradicts the annotations nor significantly enriches them.

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?

A single sentence with the action verb and resource front-loaded, immediately followed by the filter scope. Every word earns its place and the description remains appropriately brief for a simple list tool. It is a model of efficient communication given the tool's complexity.

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 list tool with 9 self-describing parameters, no nested objects, and rich safety annotations, the description is close to adequate, but it omits any mention of pagination defaults or the shape of what is returned (no output schema exists to document return values). A future-oriented agent might wonder about defaults for limit/offset. The filtering dimension is well covered though, and the missing return-format guidance is only a moderate gap at this complexity level.

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 at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description previews parameter semantics by grouping filters conceptually ('по кампании, группе, id, состоянию и статусу'), which maps onto campaignIds, adGroupIds, ids, states, and statuses, aiding overall comprehension. This is a nice touch but adds no detail beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 and resource ('Возвращает список объявлений' - returns a list of ads) and enumerates the filter dimensions (campaign, group, id, state, status), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., list_campaigns, list_ad_groups), though the resource name 'ads' differentiates it implicitly. A small miss against the highest bar of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_creatives, get_ad_images, or list_keywords, and does not mention exclusions or preconditions. Given the large sibling list (over 40 tools), some routing hints about when filtering at the ad level is appropriate vs. querying at the campaign or group level would be valuable. Usage is only implied by the tool's own name.

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