Список объявлений

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses two non-obvious behavioral traits: the result set silently omits ads whose copy is neural-network generated (and no signal of this appears in the response), and the moderation rejection reason surfaces in StatusClarification. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry, and it warns the agent not to infer absence from the output.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the returned fields come first, then the filtering constraint, then the incompleteness caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the paragraph is heavy and the caveat about neural-network ads could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the fields, where the rejection reason lives, and critically warns that the list can be incomplete in a way invisible to the caller. An agent has everything needed to call and correctly interpret the result.

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 100% so the schema already documents limit, offset and ad_group_ids. The description adds a genuine constraint not in the schema: ad_group_ids is the only selector and ad-ID lookup is not supported, which clarifies how the parameter must be used.

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+resource (listing ads within ad groups) and enumerates the returned fields (titles, texts, links, statuses, type/subtype, sitelinks, vcard, image). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like manage_ads, moderate_ads and create_text_ad, and from list_ad_groups by its resource scope.

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 clear scoping rules — selection is by group only, not by ad ID, and archived ads are returned alongside active ones — plus a caution to cross-check the Direct UI for completeness. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative for other lookup modes, but the context for when this tool applies is unambiguous.

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