list_my_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Facts only, no predictions', which discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait. It also implies a read-only operation by focusing on listing and ranking, and mentions ranking by recent spend, adding value beyond the schema.

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 concise, with a clear list of metrics and a single-purpose statement. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by useful context and a clarifying caveat.

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?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, key return fields, and behavioral note ('Facts only, no predictions'). It lacks explicit details on how the data is filtered or sorted beyond 'ranked by recent spend', but for a list tool this is sufficient.

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%, as both 'days' and 'limit' have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate; it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'the marketer's OWN ads', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_competitor_ads and get_my_competitor_ads by emphasizing ownership. It also lists the performance metrics returned and mentions the 'Ad Library YOUR ads corpus', which clarifies its unique scope.

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?

It clearly indicates this is for the marketer's own ads and notes it powers the Ad Library 'Your ads' corpus, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for competitor ads, though sibling names suggest that distinction.

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