google_ads_callouts_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is read-only (non-destructive), describes the return structure, and reveals the specific scan scope (campaign_asset rows only). It does not mention pagination or error conditions, but for a list operation, the clarity is 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 no output schema, the description specifies the exact return fields. It references sibling tools for create and remove, mentions the per-campaign limit, and provides sufficient context for a simple list operation. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that campaign_id can be obtained via google_ads_campaigns_list, which is a practical hint. This extra context elevates the score.

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 callout extension assets for a Google Ads campaign, specifies the return format [{id, resource_name, callout_text}], and explicitly differentiates from google_ads_sitelinks_list by noting it only scans campaign_asset rows (no 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 provides explicit usage context: audit coverage before calling google_ads_callouts_create or google_ads_callouts_remove, and mentions the hardcoded limit of 20 callouts per campaign. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the implied sibling differentiation.

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