amazon ads get sb ad groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are paginated one page at a time, all states including archived are returned by default, and eligibility can block the call. It does not cover rate limits or whether an ineligible profile errors versus returns empty.

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?

Four short sentences with zero filler; the core action and scope lead, followed by prerequisite, paging, and the semantic caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present and full param coverage, the description covers what annotations and schema cannot: eligibility gating, one-page-at-a-time semantics, and the warning that this is configuration data. Only the ineligibility failure mode is left unstated.

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 states, nextToken, maxResults, campaignIds and accountId are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the all-states default and the continuation-token pattern, adding little beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Read one page of') and a scoped resource ('Sponsored Brands ad groups'), and names the paging model up front. The 'Sponsored Brands' qualifier lets an agent distinguish it from amazon_ads_get_sd_ad_groups and the generic amazon_ads_get_ad_groups without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It states a real prerequisite ('Requires Brands eligibility in this profile') and a usage constraint ('follow nextToken'), and 'Configuration is not performance' implicitly steers agents wanting metrics toward the reporting tools. The exclusion is stated but the alternative (amazon_ads_create_report) is never named, so routing still takes a small inference.

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