google ads get adgroups

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the description's burden. The description adds the campaign-filter scoping but nothing about pagination, result ordering, or default behavior; those details are left to the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 11-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and carries no redundant filler. The optional campaign filter is the one behavioral nuance included, earning its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate. The only notable gap is explicit routing to GAQL or other siblings for more complex ad group queries, but this is minor given how much the structured data already conveys.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including bounds, defaults, enum values, and the customer ID format. The description adds only the campaign-filter relationship, which is marginal value beyond the structured schema; 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 description uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('ad groups for a Google Ads account') and notes optional campaign filtering. It is not a tautology of the tool name and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like google_ads_get_campaigns and google_ads_get_keyword_performance.

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 context is implied: call this when you need ad groups, optionally scoped by campaign. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as google_ads_run_gaql for custom queries, so it stops at implied usage without exclusions.

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