list_adgroups

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds 'GET /adGroups' which is consistent with read-only behavior, but it provides no further behavioral details such as pagination, authentication requirements, or what data the list returns. No contradiction exists, but the description adds minimal value 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 phrase that efficiently states the resource and HTTP method. It avoids redundant words and is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is very sparse. It does not explain the scope of the list (e.g., whether it returns ad groups for a specific campaign or account), what the output contains, or how optional filters affect results. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so all three parameters (campaign_id, ad_account_id, business_token) are already well-documented. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a list operation for ad groups ('광고그룹 목록') and includes the REST endpoint 'GET /adGroups'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_adgroup, which fetches a single ad group. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_campaigns.

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 alternatives. It does not mention filtering, scoping, or that get_adgroup should be used for a single ad group. The context is implied by the name, but the description itself provides no explicit usage direction.

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