get_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavior: results include ALL ads regardless of spend, and it reports 'actual delivery status' rather than inferred performance. However, it does not mention pagination, response shape beyond a few fields, or any operational caveats, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second sentence clarifies its scope relative to insights tools. The key differentiator is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 listing tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough information about result composition (delivery status, name, creative info) and scope. The schema covers required and optional parameters. It lacks an explicitly named alternative sibling, but the overall context is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters, including the status_filter enum and default. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general listing context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List ads' with their delivery status, name, and creative info. It also distinguishes itself from insights-based tools, making it clear this is a structural ad-listing tool rather than a metrics tool. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_debug_insights and get_ad_creatives.

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 phrase 'Unlike insights-based tools, this shows ALL ads regardless of spend' gives a clear use case: choose this when you need the full ad list, not spend-filtered or metrics-focused data. It does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative, but it identifies the relevant category of alternatives well enough.

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