google ads list accounts

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the data source and the conditional attempt to include enabled child accounts from customer_client, which is useful behavioral context. 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional child-account behavior is delivered as a concise supplementary clause. Every word earns 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?

Given zero parameters, a rich set of safety annotations, an output schema, and a clear behavioral note about child accounts, the description is sufficiently complete. An agent should be able to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional guidance.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information missing. The description's account-access and manager-child scope adds meaningful context about what the returned set represents, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Google Ads customer accounts'), and a scope qualifier ('accessible with the current credentials'). It also adds the manager-account child inclusion behavior, which clearly differentiates it from narrower account tools like google_ads_get_account_details and google_ads_get_account_hierarchy.

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?

The description implies when to use it: for discovering which accounts the current credentials can access, including child accounts of manager accounts. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternatives or when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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