direct_list_adgroups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('READ-ONLY') and an output characteristic ('Includes RegionIds'). However, it does not mention pagination, error behavior, or authentication. For a simple read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences plus a fragment, front-loading the purpose and adding only useful specifics (RegionIds, READ-ONLY). Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and safety hint, but it does not explain the response structure beyond mentioning RegionIds, nor does it clarify pagination via the limit parameter. Given no annotations, more detail would improve completeness, but it is minimally sufficient.

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 only 33% (only 'project' has a description). The description adds semantic value by indicating that 'campaign_ids' and 'project' are alternative filters ('for campaign_ids or project'). However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'limit' or the relationship between the filters beyond 'or', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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') and resource ('ad groups'), and clarifies the filtering scope ('for campaign_ids or project'). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by naming a distinct entity, though it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings. The mention of 'Includes RegionIds' adds slight ambiguity but doesn't detract from the core purpose.

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 usage when you need ad groups for specific campaigns or a project, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like direct_list_campaigns or direct_list_ads. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is limited to the implied context.

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