direct.hf.find_adgroups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that, saying only 'Human-friendly' with no mention of pagination, limit behavior, or how the campaign/name filters combine.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or restated name. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the six parameters and the crowded sibling set.

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. For a read-only find tool the description is minimally complete, but it omits routing guidance against the raw list tools and leaves four of six parameters unexplained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming the campaign and name filters, which maps to campaign_id/campaign_name and name_contains. It leaves limit and the id-vs-name distinction undocumented in both places, so the help is partial.

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 (find) and resource (ad groups) plus the filter dimensions (campaign and name), so the agent knows what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling direct.list_adgroups or direct.report_adgroups; the 'Human-friendly' prefix only hints at the differentiation.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-routing guidance is given. The description implies it is the friendly lookup variant, but with direct.list_adgroups and direct.hf.find_campaigns/find_ads/find_keywords in the sibling set, the agent gets no explicit rule for choosing among them.

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