List funding instrument allocations

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 and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on pagination, result shape, or whether the listing is scoped to a business. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though the phrase 'child funding instruments allocated from a funding instrument' is slightly circular and could have used the freed space for the usage distinction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at what an allocation record contains, but it does not. Pagination mechanics are covered by the schema, and annotations cover safety, so the definition is minimally viable for a read-only list tool rather than complete.

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 75%, and the three pagination parameters are documented in the schema itself. The one undocumented parameter is funding_instrument_id — the required one — and the description never explains what a funding instrument id refers to or how to obtain one. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does most of the work, but the key parameter remains unexplained.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (child funding instruments allocated from a funding instrument), which distinguishes it from reddit_ads_list_funding_instruments and reddit_ads_query_business_funding_instruments. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state the relationship contrast, but the 'child ... allocated from' framing makes the scope identifiable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With three closely related funding-instrument tools in the sibling list, the description never says when to pick this one over list_funding_instruments or query_business_funding_instruments, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. that the parent funding_instrument_id must already be known).

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