google_ads_location_targeting_list

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states 'Read-only' and describes the exact return shape: 'Returns [{criterion_id, geo_target_constant (resource path, e.g. 'geoTargetConstants/2392' for Japan), bid_modifier (float or null)}].' It adds context about geo target constant IDs. It does not mention pagination or potential large result sets, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate. A 4 reflects strong transparency without going into every possible edge case.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second describes the return format, and the third adds geo constant context and sibling alternatives. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter list tool with no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, the return structure, the read-only nature, and even provides a useful note about geo target constants. The context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results. No missing critical information 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameters, with clear descriptions for both campaign_id and customer_id. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no extra parameter insight is given, so a 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's function: 'List every LOCATION campaign_criterion on a Google Ads campaign.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'For adding or removing locations use google_ads_location_targeting_update; for schedule-based targeting use google_ads_schedule_targeting_list.' This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance by naming alternatives: 'For adding or removing locations use google_ads_location_targeting_update; for schedule-based targeting use google_ads_schedule_targeting_list.' It also frames the tool as read-only, implying it is for listing/checking, not modifying. This is 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.