list_ads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose 'Read-only', which is the key safety signal. It does not cover pagination, ordering/recency semantics, or what fields come back, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by usage and safety, with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter list tool this covers purpose, safety, and intended use adequately. But with no output schema and an undocumented `limit`, an agent still lacks guidance on result volume and pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `limit` parameter (default 25) is never mentioned. 'Recent ads' hints at ordering but the description does not explain what the limit controls or the default result size, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List recent ads') scoped to the configured Meta ad account, which distinguishes it from list_campaigns/list_ad_sets by hierarchy level. It does not explicitly say how it differs from those sibling list tools, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to find ad IDs and inspect delivery status' gives a concrete task-oriented context for selecting the tool. No when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative is named, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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