List ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by stating that archived ads are excluded from results and by enumerating the review_status values surfaced, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether archived ads are retrievable another way.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, leading with the resource and following with returned fields and the exclusion rule. The phrasing is telegraphic and slightly awkward ("not listed by OpenAI" reads as platform attribution rather than a tool rule), but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers the key unknowns: which fields come back and that archived ads are omitted. Pagination and result limits are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents ad_group_id including its pattern. The description reinforces the scope ("of an ad group") but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource and its scope ("Ads of an ad group") and names the fields returned, so an agent can infer it lists ads belonging to the supplied ad group id. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb and no explicit statement that it is a listing/read operation scoped to one ad group, leaving purpose merely implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_ad, measurement_get_ads_report, or measurement_get_ads_breakdown. The only conditional statement ("Archived ads are not listed") describes result filtering, not tool selection, so the agent must guess which ad-retrieval tool applies.

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