amazon ads get ad groups

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the default-inclusion of paused and archived entities plus the explicit warning that a single page is not an account total and must be paginated. That is meaningful context beyond structured fields, though it says nothing about ordering, rate limits, or auth/profile prerequisites.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is read, followed by the pagination caveat, then the config-vs-performance disambiguation. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers scope, defaults, and pagination, leaving only minor gaps like required accountId emphasis and region matching already handled by the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter (states, accountId, nextToken, maxResults, campaignIds) is already documented in the schema, including defaults and limits. The description reinforces the state default and pagination semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one page of Amazon Sponsored Products ad groups'), naming the ad type explicitly so it is distinguishable from the sibling SD and SB ad group tools. It also clarifies the entities covered (paused and archived by default), so an agent knows exactly what is returned without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: 'Continue with nextToken until absent; one page is not an account total,' which tells the agent how to use it correctly, and 'not performance metrics' steers away from using it for reporting (where amazon_ads_create_report applies). It does not explicitly state when to pick this over amazon_ads_get_sb_ad_groups or amazon_ads_get_sd_ad_groups, leaving that inference to the platform name.

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