google_ads_callouts_list

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

The description declares the tool as read-only and specifies the scanning scope (only campaign_asset rows), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or potential performance impacts. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is mostly sufficient.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, return format, sibling distinction, and usage context. No extraneous information, optimally front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return format, provides comparison to a sibling, and advises on use cases and constraints, making the definition complete for an agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists callout extension assets for a campaign, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling google_ads_sitelinks_list by noting it only scans campaign_asset rows without account-level merge.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool for auditing coverage before calling create or remove, and mentions the hardcoded limit of 20 callouts per campaign, providing clear context for when to invoke it.

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