Список групп

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are scoped to selected campaigns and enumerates returned fields, which is modest extra context but doesn't discuss pagination or result size limits beyond what the schema covers.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope. Nothing wasted, though the field list is a bit thin for the space allotted.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks explicit guidance on pagination behavior, expected result volume, or how it relates to sibling list tools, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 all three parameters (campaign_ids, limit, offset) are already documented in the schema, including pagination semantics for offset. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States verb+resource: lists ad groups of selected campaigns and the fields returned (names, regions, statuses). Clear purpose, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools like list_campaigns or list_ads beyond the resource name itself, which is fairly self-evident.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read-side complement to create_ad_group/delete_ad_groups.

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