List ad groups

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that money fields are in account currency and that targetings contains specific targeting structure, which helps the agent understand output format.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds unique value.

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?

No output schema is provided. The description mentions money fields and targetings but omits pagination behavior (offset, limit, autoPaginate) and the overall return structure (e.g., list of objects). Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description is somewhat under-specified.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds overarching context about money fields and targetings, which complements the schema without repeating it. This extra nuance elevates the score above 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists ad groups with optional filtering by ids, parent ad plans, and statuses. It also specifies that money fields are in account currency and that targetings holds targeting structure, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_ad_plans or list_banners.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_ad_plans, list_banners). It implies usage for ad group listing but lacks exclusion criteria or context for tool selection.

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