List mediation groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Lists'. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying what is included in the response (targeting format, platform, ad units, and mediation lines), which goes beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key included details with no redundant wording. It earns its place entirely.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate. It communicates the primary purpose and response content, though it doesn't discuss pagination or return format, which is acceptable given the schema covers those.

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 does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions for filter, pageSize, and pageToken.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('mediation groups'), and clearly defines scope (AdMob account) and content (targeting details and mediation lines). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_mediation_group or list_accounts.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving existing mediation groups but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The read-only nature is implied by 'Lists' and the sibling create/update tools, but no direct guidance is provided.

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