google_ads_image_assets_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a critical safety indicator, and describes the exact return shape including fields like id, name, type, file_size, mime_type, dimensions, and URL. While it doesn't discuss pagination or error cases, the core behavior is transparent and enriched beyond a simple 'lists assets' statement.

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 long, but the first sentence is dense with an inline object shape. The information is well-organized and every part earns its place, including the explicit read-only flag and usage guidance. It is not overly verbose, though the embedded object could be slightly more readable. Overall, it is an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

For a simple list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, output shape, read-only nature, and use cases. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return structure, and the limit parameter's behavior is documented in the schema. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning both parameters (limit, customer_id) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It mentions dimensions in the output but does not discuss parameter syntax or defaults.

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 explicitly states it 'Lists image assets in the Google Ads account with their names and dimensions,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like google_ads_ads_list (lists ads) and google_ads_assets_upload_image (uploads assets) by focusing on image assets and mentioning 'instead of re-uploading duplicates via google_ads_assets_upload_image.'

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 explicit use cases: 'Use this to find an existing asset id/name before referencing it in a Responsive Display Ad, or to audit what imagery the account already has.' It also names the alternative tool (google_ads_assets_upload_image) and when to avoid it ('instead of re-uploading duplicates'), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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