bing get ad groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'owned campaign' prerequisite and that native configuration is included; it doesn't discuss pagination, rate limits, or failure modes, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the resource and scope up front. It is efficient, though the phrase 'native configuration' is slightly vague about what is actually returned.

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 a full output schema, rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does: read ad groups scoped to an owned campaign. More detail on the returned 'native configuration' would help, but the essentials are present.

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 all three parameters (including the campaignType enum and the BING_ADS_ACCOUNT_IDS note) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 description gives a specific verb (read) and resource (ad groups) with an explicit scope constraint ('in an owned campaign'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like bing_get_ads and bing_get_keywords by naming its resource, though it doesn't call out alternatives directly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'in an owned campaign' – the agent must supply accountId, campaignId, and campaignType – but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-another-sibling guidance. Adequate but relies on inference.

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