ads_list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about whether removed campaigns are returned, what the default limit or pagination behavior is, how filters combine, or what access is required. Almost no behavioral detail is disclosed.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with no filler; every word earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple list operation, though a second sentence on usage or defaults would have been more helpful.

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?

This tool has four parameters, two enums, no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage — so the description is the only channel for explaining defaults, filter interaction, pagination (the limit max of 10000 hints at it), and return shape. The single sentence covers none of these, leaving an agent to guess at runtime 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only customerId is described), so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented type, limit, and status parameters—but it does not. It adds no meaning about how these filters shape the result set; whatever semantics exist come from the enum values in the schema itself.

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') and a specific resource ('campaigns in a Google Ads account'), making the core operation clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as ads_get_campaign (single campaign) or ads_campaign_performance (metrics), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions ads_get_campaign for retrieving one campaign, ads_campaign_performance for reporting, or ads_list_ad_groups for a different resource level, leaving the agent to infer selection purely 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.