x ads list promoted posts

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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds value by disclosing that native X fields and pagination are preserved and that _micro fields are millionths of the account currency. This is useful response behavior beyond the structured hints, though 'native X fields' is left a bit undefined.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose before behavioral notes, with no filler. It loses a point for the missing separator between 'ads account' and 'Native X fields,' which makes the sentence boundary unclear and slightly hurts readability.

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?

With rich annotations, a 100%-documented schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral context: pagination is preserved and monetary fields are scaled. It stops short of complete because it does not help route the agent between this list tool and its singular getter or other related list tools, though that gap is largely a usage-guidance issue.

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?

All eight parameters are already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description contributes the _micro currency convention and preserved pagination, but those are response-field semantics rather than additional meaning for the input parameters themselves.

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 names a specific operation ('List'), resource ('promoted posts (promoted tweets)'), and scope ('for an ads account'), so the core purpose is unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as x_ads_get_promoted_post or x_ads_list_account_posts, so it falls just short of full sibling-level distinction.

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 guidance is given about when to prefer this list operation over x_ads_get_promoted_post for a single record, x_ads_list_line_items, or x_ads_list_account_posts. The word 'List' implies batch retrieval, but the description never states prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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