bing get asset groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include native creative configuration and status, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or behavior when the campaign is not Performance Max. With annotations covering the read semantics, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase ('Performance Max', 'native creative configuration and status') carries information. No filler.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema that handles return semantics. The description successfully pins the domain to Performance Max asset groups; only minor gaps remain around result volume or edge-case 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 100%, and the schema already explains both accountId (numeric ID vs. web-app account number) and campaignId (must be a Performance Max campaign). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus specific resource ('Performance Max asset groups') and scope ('native creative configuration and status'). No sibling tool covers asset groups, so it is distinguishable, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with bing_get_campaigns or bing_get_ads.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you fetch asset groups for a Performance Max campaign. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions (e.g., non-PMax campaigns will not return asset groups), and no named alternatives.

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