List Ads

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the listing action. It does not disclose pagination semantics hinted at by the 'after' cursor and 'limit' parameters, ordering defaults, or error behavior. Nothing is contradicted to the level of a score of 1, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 single sentence is efficient with zero fluff and front-loads the core action. However, it errs toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness: a 4-parameter tool with a pagination cursor and enum receives no behavioral elaboration beyond six words.

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?

Incomplete for an agent. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain cursor-based pagination ('after', 'limit' capped at 500), ordering behavior, and the expected response shape — none of which are addressed. It does establish the required ad_group_id scope, which prevents misuse of the one required parameter.

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 only 25% (ad_group_id alone has a description). The description adds marginal meaning by clarifying the scope, but it fails to compensate for the undocumented 'after', 'limit', and 'order' parameters, leaving their semantics entirely to inference from parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('ads'), and a scoping constraint ('specific ad group ID'), which is clear and unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like list_ad_groups (different resource) and get_ad (single-object fetch), though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicitly named.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_ad serves single-object retrieval, that set_ad_state handles mutations, or any conditions under which list_ads is the appropriate choice.

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