google_ads_image_assets_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states 'Read-only' and enumerates the return shape. Does not mention rate limits or explicit non-destructive behavior beyond the statement, but the read-only claim is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of pagination handling, but limit parameter suggests it.

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?

Concise single paragraph that front-loads purpose, then details return structure, and ends with usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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 fully explains what it does and what it returns. No missing elements 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (limit, customer_id) having descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only references the returned fields. Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 image assets, specifies the exact return shape with fields like id, name, url, etc. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool google_ads_assets_upload_image by contrasting listing vs uploading.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to find an existing asset id/name before referencing in a Responsive Display Ad, or to audit imagery to avoid re-uploading duplicates. Also tells when not to use: instead of re-uploading, use google_ads_assets_upload_image.

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