List ad groups

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds high-value behavior the annotations cannot: statuses are filtered by default so archived entities are silently omitted unless widened, IDs match in any status, and results are capped at max_results. It also flags summary_status as a delivery signal, though it says nothing about pagination or ordering.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence followed by terse filter notes; nearly every clause carries information. The compressed phrasing ('this entity's IDs', 'where supported') trades a little clarity for brevity.

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 detail is unnecessary, and the description still adds the delivery-signal hint. For a six-parameter list tool with zero schema descriptions, the unexplained ad_group_ids parameter is the main remaining hole.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 6 parameters: description explains ids (cap of 250), statuses (defaults and allowed widening), max_results and campaign_ids. It leaves ad_group_ids completely unexplained and never resolves how 'ids' relates to the separate ad_group_ids parameter, and ad_account_id is only implied by the phrase 'in an ad account'.

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 and resource (list ad groups) scoped to an ad account, which naturally separates it from list_campaigns, list_ads and the create/update/archive_ad_groups siblings. It stops short of any explicit routing statement, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance for the statuses filter (default ACTIVE+PAUSED, widen with ['ARCHIVED'] or ['ALL']) and for combining ids with campaign_ids. It does not name an alternative tool or say when another tool should be preferred over this one.

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