list_ad_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the exact output fields and scope, making the behavior transparent for a read-only list operation. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but these are less critical for a simple list tool.

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 sentence with a clear structure: action + resource + scope, followed by a colon and a list of returned fields. Every word carries meaning and there is no fluff.

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 tool's low complexity, only two parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explicitly names the return fields, making the tool's purpose and result clear. Minor details like ordering or pagination are not mentioned, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the campaign context for campaign_id but does not clarify account_id beyond the parameter name itself. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb (List) with a clear resource (ad groups) and a scope (in a campaign), and explicitly lists the return fields (id, name, status, cpc bid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_keywords and list_ads.

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 phrase 'in a campaign' clearly implies the tool is used to retrieve ad groups for a specific campaign, which provides clear context. However, it does not mention any exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools, so it does not earn a 5.

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