List ad groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination behavior, the exact return shape including apiPointBalance, the meaning of key fields (e.g., price is the bid in rubles), and limitations like targeting not being exposed. This is substantial added value, though it doesn't cover error conditions or authentication nuances.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers return structure, key field semantics, and usage alternatives. Each sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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, no output schema, and no explicit return value documentation elsewhere, the description takes on the burden of explaining the response structure and key field meanings. It also covers the level's financial significance and what is not included (targeting), making it highly complete for a list operation.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning to the parameters themselves; it mentions pagination but the schema already documents page/limit defaults and ranges. No extra clarity beyond schema is provided.

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?

Clearly states it lists the account's ad groups with pagination, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing that this is the list operation for groups, and contrasts with mutation tools like change_group_budget/change_group_price. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly directs users to change_group_budget and change_group_price for modifying the only writable fields, and states that groups cannot be created, renamed, paused, resumed, or deleted here. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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