gads_list_rsas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output fields but does not mention that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('List Responsive Search Ads') and conveys the key features concisely. It avoids unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description lists the fields returned (headlines, descriptions, Ad Strength, approval status) but does not explain pagination, ordering, or the absence of an output schema. For a tool with a `limit` parameter, pagination details would enhance completeness. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 already provides descriptions for 3 out of 4 parameters (customer_id, campaign_id, ad_group_id, limit) with coverage at 75%. The tool description only repeats the filtering concept from the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.

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 states 'List Responsive Search Ads' with specific fields (headlines, descriptions, Ad Strength rating, approval status) and filtering options. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like gads_list_assets or gads_rsa_asset_performance by focusing on RSAs.

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 mentions filtering by campaign or ad group, which gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gads_campaign_assets or gads_rsa_asset_performance. The usage guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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