list_ads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that each ad has an id, type, and status, and that an optional ad group filter is supported. However, it does not disclose whether results include deleted/inactive ads, pagination, ordering, or required permissions. More context would help, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentence that leads with the verb 'List', specifies the resource, the optional modifier, and the returned fields. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or 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 list operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and return fields. It implies that omitting ad_group_id returns all ads, which is clear enough. Missing details like pagination and default sorting, but these are not critical for basic understanding.

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 provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameters. It does explain ad_group_id as an optional filter. However, customer_id is not described, though its purpose as a customer identifier is self-evident from the name and required nature. The description partially compensates 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?

The description unambiguously states the tool's function: listing ads, with an optional ad group filter, and names the return fields (id, type, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ad_groups and list_campaigns due to the specific resource (ads) and the output payload.

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 implies a usage scenario (listing ads, filtering by ad group) but does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives such as list_ad_groups or search. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided, so it is adequate but not explicit.

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