ads_client_profile_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'list' implies a safe read, and the dialogue-history exclusion is a genuinely useful disclosure about payload scope. However, it says nothing about permissions, default limits, ordering, or what a profile summary actually contains, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the distinguishing scope detail is placed immediately. It could afford one short clause about available filters without becoming bloated, so it is efficient but slightly under-sized for a four-parameter tool.

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 tool with four undocumented optional filters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently: no filter semantics, no notion of result shape or pagination. The 'without dialogue histories' note is the only real added context.

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% across four parameters, including two enums (status, consent_status) whose semantics are only bare values. The description never mentions limit, source, status, or consent_status, so filtering behavior and the meaning of 'source' must be guessed entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List local client profiles') and adds a scope qualifier ('without loading full dialogue histories') that separates it from the heavier get/message tools. It does not name a sibling outright, but 'list' vs. 'get' and 'client profile' vs. 'network profile' are distinguishable from the name-plus-description pair.

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 'without loading full dialogue histories' clause implies this is the lightweight/browsing entry point before calling ads_client_profile_get, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent can infer the use case for listing profiles but gets no explicit routing guidance among the many profile-related siblings.

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