direct_list_adextensions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a read-only behavior via the 'READ:' prefix and hints at return fields ('ids + text'). However, it does not explain filtering behavior, pagination, or whether an empty ids parameter returns all callouts. It adds some context beyond the schema but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the read nature and the resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide sufficient context. It identifies the resource and hint at output fields, but omits behavior for optional parameters, response format, and any constraints. For a simple list tool, it is minimally acceptable but leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'ids' but not as a filter parameter, and does not explain the 'limit' parameter or how 'ids' controls the result set. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for the callouts library, using 'READ: adextensions.get' and specifying the content as 'ids + text'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like direct_list_sitelinks and direct_list_advideos, making the purpose specific and 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as direct_add_callouts or direct_attach_callouts, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied by the name and short description, but there is no explicit direction.

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