ads_tg_resource_post_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does address the highest-risk ambiguity for a Telegram-named tool by declaring it read-only and that it never sends messages. It says nothing about pagination, default limit, ordering, or what "confirmed" means as a filter, so the disclosure is partial.

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 compact sentence with the operation and its safety constraint front-loaded; no filler. It is short to the point of under-specification, but on structure and economy it is strong.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage leave an agent guessing about filter semantics (what makes a link "confirmed", what status values select) and result size. The safety note is valuable but far from complete for a four-parameter listing tool.

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, so the description must compensate and it does not: limit, status (enum posted/deleted/unknown), project_id (default "neron"), and resource_id are all unexplained. Only a vague hint that results relate to "local resources" touches resource_id.

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 ("List") and a specific resource ("confirmed Telegram publication links recorded for local resources"), which distinguishes it from ads_tg_resource_post_record (write) and ads_tg_resource_list (resource registry). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 wording implies when to use it — when you want existing publication records — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g., use ads_tg_resource_post_record to create a link). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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