google_ads_audience_targeting_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses the output shape (one entry per criterion, including fields and type enum values) and the 1000-criteria cap. It could add more about auth requirements or pagination behavior, but the current disclosure is strong for a 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines the resource, enumerates audience types, gives the return shape with an example, states read-only status, provides a concrete use case, and explains scoping. It is front-loaded with the action and remains information-rich without 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates well by including the exact returned fields and value format (e.g., 'customers/1/userLists/42'). It covers the read-only nature, scoping, and cap. Minor omissions like pagination details or error behavior prevent a perfect score, but given the tool's list-only purpose, this is quite 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining the optionality and behavior of omitting both ad_group_id and campaign_id: 'omit both for the whole account (capped at 1000 criteria).' This enriches the parameter guidance beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists audience-type criteria attached to ad groups,' and enumerates the exact types of audiences covered (user interests, remarketing, custom audiences, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from sibling targeting-list tools like google_ads_location_targeting_list or google_ads_demographic_targeting_list.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to audit which audience segments an ad group targets or excludes before proposing targeting changes.' It also explains how to scope results (by ad_group_id and/or campaign_id, or omit for whole account). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-audience targeting, so it stops short of a 5.

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