list_dv360_creatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar applies. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 200-item ceiling and the constraint that the filter must be held constant across pages. Auth requirements and what happens if the filter is changed mid-pagination are not covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and the cap, no filler. It is efficient, though the fragmentary last sentence reads like an afterthought rather than structured guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the max-200 cap is surfaced. But for a paged, filtered listing with five undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about page_size, page_token, and advertiser_id semantics.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains only 'filter' (native DV360 filter, reused across pages). advertiser_id (the sole required param), account, page_size (the parameter that governs the 200 cap), and page_token receive no explanation at all.

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 and resource (list DV360 creatives settings) plus a hard cap (max 200), and explicitly distinguishes the payload from performance metrics. It does not name how it differs from sibling listers like list_dv360_campaigns or list_cm360_creatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 gives pagination guidance ('use the same filter when requesting the next page'), which is genuinely actionable. However, it never states when to choose this over the sibling creatives/report tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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