google ads list video assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context beyond those: assets are returned newest-first, the count is the account total, and Google Ads exposes no downloadable video file (PMax/Demand Gen videos must be played via embed or thumbnails) 🎯. It also discloses that the tool returns the whole stock regardless of delivery status.

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 front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by useful context about ordering, delivery, and the no-download limitation 👍. It is slightly wordy with phrases like 'The local server returns media URLs and native report data' and the final sentence, but every sentence contributes meaningful context. Overall it is well-structured and not bloated.

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 the presence of a rich output schema, 5 parameters (1 required), and the annotations, the description covers all needed contextual points: scope, ordering, count, delivery semantics, the main alternative, and the YouTube hosting limitation 🚀. The schema covers pagination via beforeAssetId and limit, so the description does not need to repeat those details. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description enhances the meaning of the limit parameter by clarifying ordering: 'Newest first, so a limit returns recent assets rather than an arbitrary slice' 💫. It does not add much for customerId, assetIds, nameFilter, or beforeAssetId, but the schema already describes those fully.

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 clearly states the tool lists the account's YouTube video assets (FROM asset) with derived watch, embed, and thumbnail URLs 🌟. It also distinguishes this tool from delivery-oriented views by emphasizing it represents the whole stock with no notion of delivery 💫, and names the hosted GetMCPAds service as an alternative for visual-only galleries with delivery over dates.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus the hosted GetMCPAds service: use this for the whole asset stock and native report data, and use the hosted service for a visual-only gallery with delivery over dates 💫. It also clarifies the local server returns media URLs and native report data, guiding selection among the sibling tools.

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