list_business_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing) but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose pagination, ordering, rate limits, or response size. The vague 'etc.' adds little. For a listing tool, this lack of behavioral detail leaves significant uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource. The inclusion of 'etc.' is somewhat vague and could be seen as unnecessary, but overall it is concise and well-structured. Minor deduction for the ambiguous trailing phrase.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview but is incomplete. It mentions the fields returned (id, name, status) but omits pagination, default behavior, whether ad_account_id is mandatory, and any other response details. Given the lack of output schema and minimal parameter info, more explanation is warranted.

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?

The schema has one parameter (ad_account_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'the ad account' but does not explain the parameter's purpose, format, or whether it is required (context shows required=0). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property name, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Business Agents') scoped to the ad account. It mentions key fields (id, name, status) and naturally distinguishes from singular operations like get_business_agent or mutation tools like publish_business_agent. The purpose 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to list all agents versus retrieving a single one via get_business_agent, nor any context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios. The description fails to differentiate from sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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