google_ads_list_ad_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It discloses the read nature via 'List' and mentions metric inclusion, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, or return behavior. Score 2 due to limited behavioral context.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundancy. It is efficient and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is a simple list operation with complete parameter schema and no output schema. The description adequately communicates scope and metric inclusion, but lacks specificity about response format or pagination, so it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 covers both required parameters with descriptions (customer_id, campaign_id), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, meriting the baseline 3.

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?

Description explicitly states 'List all ad groups for a Google Ads campaign with performance metrics', clearly identifying the resource (ad groups) and scope (per campaign). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ads and 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?

No explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the wording makes the target use case obvious. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions, scoring 3 as implied usage.

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