direct_list_ad_videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' merely repeats structured data and earns no credit. No additional behavior is disclosed (no note on pagination limits, result ordering, or what happens when ids are omitted despite the API-required claim).

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 clauses, front-loaded with the resource and no filler. Its sparseness is a completeness problem rather than a verbosity one, so it scores well here.

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, but a listing tool with pagination params and an unclear ID requirement needs more than one cryptic sentence. The '(required by the API)' note conflicts with a schema where ids is nullable, defaults to null, and no parameters are required, leaving the agent unsure how to call it.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It only touches 'ids' (claiming they are API-required, which usefully nuances the schema's default null) and says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset', so pagination behavior is undocumented in both places.

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 the resource (ad videos) and the key dimension returned (status), but the verb is implied rather than stated and the phrase 'Ad video status by video Ids' reads awkwardly. Against a sibling set full of 'direct_list_*' tools (ad_images, creatives, ad_extensions), it does not clearly distinguish itself as the video-specific lister.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The only hint is the parenthetical '(required by the API)', which gestures at an input requirement but never says when an agent should pick this tool or what it should pick instead.

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