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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the returned dimensions (status, ad strength, per-field_type asset coverage) and by explaining the single-workspace default for the workspace argument. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences: the core action and returned fields come first, then the filter and workspace caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the title.

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 shape need not be specified, yet the description still previews the key fields. For a two-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is sufficient; only the campaign_id format remains underspecified.

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 burden and largely meets it: it explains workspace as a customer slug that may be omitted when only one workspace exists, and frames campaign_id as an optional campaign filter. The remaining gap is that the expected campaign_id format (bare ID vs. resource path) is never stated.

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 ('Asset Groups (PMax) ... auflisten') and enumerates what comes back (status, ad strength, asset coverage per field_type), which separates it from ads_list_assets and ads_create_asset_group. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the closer analytics siblings such as ads_asset_group_performance.

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 clause 'optional auf eine Kampagne gefiltert' gives a usable context hint for the main optional parameter, and the workspace note explains when it may be omitted. There is no explicit when-to-use versus ads_asset_group_performance or ads_create_asset_group, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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