list_ads

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

No annotations provided. The description only lists return fields but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The burden falls entirely on the description, which offers no behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the resource and key fields. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., front-loading the action), but overall concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a high-level idea of return fields (titles, texts, links, statuses) but lacks detail on structure (e.g., array of objects) or pagination. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already describes ad_group_ids with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., constraints, formatting, or number of IDs). Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is high.

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 it returns ads in groups with specific fields (titles, texts, links, statuses). It clearly identifies the resource as 'объявления в группах' (ads in groups) and differentiates from siblings like list_ad_groups or list_campaigns by focusing on ad-level details.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., list_ad_groups, list_keywords). No context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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