ads_network_platform_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read, but it never says whether results are paginated, how many platforms return, whether the registry must be configured first, or what 'optional' means operationally.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 two optional, undocumented filter parameters and no output schema, the description should explain at least what each filter means and what 'optional network registry' implies. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict filter or return behavior.

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%, so both parameters (region and status) are undocumented anywhere. The phrase 'verified or reported' vaguely nods at filtering but does not map onto the status enum values (pending/active/rejected/suspended), and region is never mentioned at all.

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?

Uses a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (advertising platforms), plus a qualifier ('verified or reported') and a source ('optional network registry'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like ads_network_platform_report or ads_network_inventory_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling reporting/inventory tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no statement of what the results are used for. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.

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