List creative assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the profile-library scoping, and says nothing about pagination behavior (left to the schema's max_pages/page_token) or about what a result set contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse rather than maximally informative.

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 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. Pagination and filtering are delegated to the schema, but return-value shape and default ordering are left unexplained, leaving gaps an agent would need to discover by calling it.

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 67%, with mime_type, aspect_ratios, pagination, and creative_asset_ids well documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so it neither helps nor harms relative to the baseline for adequately covered schemas.

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 creative assets') and adds scope ('in a profile's library'), which tells the agent this is a profile-scoped listing. However, it does not distinguish itself from the dense sibling cluster (list_creative_asset_uploads, get_creative_asset, get_creative_asset_upload), so an agent cannot tell these apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite several adjacent creative-asset tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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