Список групп объявлений

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true Fox, destructiveHint=false, etc., but the description adds valuable context: it specifies the return shape ({total, items, page, limit, hasNextPage}) and extra apiPointBalance, and clarifies that groups carry budget/price in rubles. It also warns about the arbitrary paces filter values, which is useful non-obvious behavior.

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 paragraph but dense with information. It front-loads the core function and return shape, then details the response structure and constraints. It is concise enough for the information volume, though it runs sentences together; and could benefit from breaking into bullet points for readability.

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?

The description is thorough for a read-only list tool with a rich schema. With schema covering all parameters and annotations providing safety profile, the description adequately fills gaps like response structure, apiPointBalance, and the money-centric nature of groups. No critical missing information for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that groups are tied to money and that 'paces' values are arbitrary (no fixed dictionary), which helps agents understand the filter. It also explains the naming convention for 'advertisers', 'managers', etc., which is not fully clear from schema alone.

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 clearly states that the tool lists ad groups of the account with pagination, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_campaigns and list_creatives by focusing on the 'group' level. It also mentions that groups are the level with budget and price, which sets it apart from higher-level listing tools.

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 description explicitly states what the tool cannot do (create, rename, pause, resume, delete groups) and that targeting is not output. It also mentions that the only mutable fields are 'budget' and 'price', which implies when to use change_group_budget/change_group_price instead. This provides clear exclusions and alternatives.

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