List Google Ads campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the list contains status and budget, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or account-scoping behavior. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, the resource, and the returned attributes. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It names the return highlights (status and budget), while the schema covers the optional account ID. It could mention pagination or account default behavior, but the tool's simplicity lowers the bar.

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 single optional customer_id parameter is already fully documented with its default-source behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 and resource ('List campaigns') and names the returned attributes (status and budget), making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like meta_ads_list_campaigns or google_ads_get_campaign_structure, but the Google Ads scope plus the return-value detail sufficiently orient an agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as google_ads_get_campaign_structure or meta_ads_list_campaigns. An agent must infer from the sibling names and general list semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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