creatives_query

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are bounded and filters are endpoint-specific. However, it does not explain pagination behavior, permissions, or how the legacy id and creativeId shortcuts interact with filters.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It puts the verb and resource first, then qualifies scope and filters. Every phrase contributes to the definition.

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?

With 11 parameters, a rich 100% described schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain routing relative to sibling tools or clarify the relationship among the many optional report/filter/pagination parameters. The structured fields carry most of the specification burden.

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 100%, so the parameter schema already documents all 11 parameters, including filters, pagination, timeRange, and required profile/adAccountId. The description only alludes to filtering and bounding and adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 when 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Query' and 'App Store creatives'. It also adds scope with 'bounded' and 'endpoint-specific filters'. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling creative_get or ads_query, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus creative_get or the other query tools. The phrase 'endpoint-specific filters' describes the filtering model but does not provide selection criteria. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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