google_ads_ads_list

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

The description declares it as read-only, lists all returned fields, and mentions creative summary for RSAs. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or how many results are returned, which are important for a list tool. Still, the behavioral traits are mostly clear.

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 efficient, one paragraph that sequentially covers purpose, output, safety note, use cases, and follow-up. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and scoping options. It supports the typical use cases (finding ad_id, auditing). Minor omission: no mention of result limit or how to handle large numbers of ads, but overall complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds little beyond schema, except noting that customer_id falls back to credentials. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Lists ads' with optional scoping by ad group and status, lists specific return fields (id, status, type, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings like update tools and policy details.

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?

Explicitly says to use this to find an ad_id before calling update tools or to audit creative inventory, and advises following up with policy details for disapproval. Provides concrete when-to-use vs. alternatives.

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