google_ads_list_bid_adjustments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool lists adjustments and returns markdown, but it does not explicitly confirm idempotency, read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. The read-only implication is weak.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example) and is relatively concise. The example is helpful but slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool. Overall, it is easy to scan and understand.

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 two simple parameters and an output schema that exists (but is not shown), the description explains the arguments adequately. However, the return value description ('All bid adjustments in markdown format') is vague and does not detail the fields or structure. Coverage is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema has two required parameters with only titles and types. The description adds basic semantic info: 'Customer ID (without hyphens)' and 'Campaign ID'. This clarifies format for customer_id but does not explain length constraints or validation rules. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides partial compensation.

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 identifies the resource ('bid adjustments') and the scope ('for a campaign'). It enumerates the types of adjustments covered (devices, locations, demographics, ad schedule), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like setter functions.

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 for reading bid adjustments (vs. setting them) through the verb 'List', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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