ads_list_ad_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lists' implies a read operation, but nothing is disclosed about default result limits, whether campaignId scopes the results or is optional, whether the status filter defaults to a specific value, or whether all accounts' ad groups are returned. The min/max on limit hints at a 10,000-cap, but the description itself is silent on behavior that an agent would need to know to call this correctly.

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 single sentence 'Lists ad groups in a Google Ads account' is efficiently front-loaded and free of filler. However, it errs on the side of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — it is short because it omits valuable information, not because it has distilled everything important into few words.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, one clause is insufficient. It does not explain the customer → campaign → ad group hierarchy (whether campaignId is needed to disambiguate), the interaction between status and limit, default behaviors, or how the response is shaped. An agent cannot fully determine correct invocation parameters beyond the required customerId.

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 description coverage is only 25% — only customerId has a description ('Google Ads Customer ID'). The description adds no meaning for campaignId (what does it filter by?), status (what does filtering do?), or limit (what is the default?). A 4-parameter tool with a bare description and sparse schema documentation leaves most parameter semantics undefined, which is a significant gap the description fails to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('ad groups') and scope ('Google Ads account'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ads_list_campaigns and ads_list_keywords by naming 'ad groups' explicitly, so an agent can tell them apart. It could add more context about the campaign hierarchy, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many ads_* siblings such as ads_list_campaigns, ads_list_keywords, or ads_get_campaign. There are no exclusions, no alternative recommendations, and no mention of the Google Ads hierarchy (customers → campaigns → ad groups) that would help an agent decide when a campaignId is necessary. The usage context must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

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