direct_list_ad_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the "Read-only" sentence is largely redundant with structured data. The one genuinely added behavior is the 10,000-item cap on the hashes input, which is useful context; no pagination or result-shape behavior is described.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, with no wasted sentences. However the dense "AdImages.get:" notation and comma lists trade away readability for brevity, reading as under-specified rather than crisply 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the semantics of the limit/offset parameters against a 0% schema coverage gap, which is a meaningful omission for a paginated 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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only touches two of four parameters (hashes with its ≤10000 cap, and associated with YES/NO). The limit (default 500) and offset (default 0) parameters — critical for pagination — are never mentioned, leaving the schema silent and the description incomplete.

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+resource ("AdImages.get: uploaded ad images") and even enumerates the returned fields (hash, name, type, subtype, associated), so an agent knows it lists image assets. It is readily distinguishable from the sibling direct_list_ad_videos by the resource noun, though it never explicitly contrasts with it or other list_* siblings.

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 description implies how to narrow results ("Optional hashes (≤10000) or associated YES/NO"), giving filter semantics but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not conditions. Usage is largely self-evident from listing images, but no alternative tool is named or routed to.

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