ads_interest_research_stats_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does add valuable context: it is read-only analytics and never contacts people, which reassures an agent about side effects. However, it omits pagination behavior, the meaning of the limit cap (1000), and the defaults (channel=mastodon, project_id=neron) that materially affect results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the safety qualifier; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and six completely undocumented parameters, the description should do much more. It leaves the agent without guidance on defaults, filtering semantics (period_start/period_end format, channel values), or result shape.

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 six parameters, so the description must compensate, but it gives no parameter-level meaning. At best, 'snapshots and tag popularity metrics' loosely hints at the stat_kind enum (summary vs tag) and the period fields, which is far short of the six undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific verb (list) and resources (saved research demand snapshots, tag popularity metrics), which an agent can map onto the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling ads_interest_research_stats_build (the producer of these snapshots), but the read/list framing is clear.

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 read-only, never-contacts-anyone framing implies this is safe for inspection-style use, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over ads_interest_research_stats_build, ads_interest_research_tag_list, or other interest-research siblings. Usage is only implied.

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