google_ads_demographic_targeting_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it declares 'Read-only', describes the exact output shape, explains the 'negative' flag semantics, and importantly clarifies that 'Segments with no explicit criterion are targeted by default and do NOT appear.' This goes well beyond the structured schema and gives the agent critical interpretation guidance.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries essential information: output shape, read-only flag, empty-result caveat, scoping options, and cap. It is well-structured, starting with the core action, then details, then usage. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 having no output schema, the description explains the return payload thoroughly and covers the most important edge case (empty result meaning). It addresses scoping across ad_group, campaign, and account levels, and mentions the 1000-criterion cap. For a read-only list tool with 3 optional params, this is fully 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 detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the 'capped at 1000 criteria' limit and explicitly states that ad_group_id and/or campaign_id can be combined or omitted, which enriches the schema's individual descriptions. This pushes it above baseline.

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's function: 'Lists explicit demographic criteria (age range, gender, parental status, household income) set on ad groups.' It uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('demographic criteria on ad groups'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like location_targeting_list or audience_targeting_list by enumerating the exact demographic types.

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 gives clear context on scoping: 'Scope with ad_group_id and/or campaign_id, or omit both for the whole account (capped at 1000 criteria).' It also clarifies the meaning of an empty result. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternative targeting-list tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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