google_ads_list_resources

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description's 'Return the full catalog' and 'Response is cacheable' statements, implying a pure read operation with no side effects. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 three short sentences, each adding useful information: the purpose, the use case, and the output structure. It is concise without unnecessary filler, achieving a high information-to-word ratio.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and a straightforward output, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, and a note on cacheability. No additional details are needed for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The description adequately covers this by not mentioning any inputs, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 purpose: to return the full catalog of GAQL resources (FROM-able tables). The verb 'list' and the resource type are explicit, and the output content (name, category, selectable) is specified.

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 explicitly mentions when the tool is useful: 'when the agent needs to pick the right resource for a question.' This provides direct usage guidance, though it does not compare with sibling tools, but the scope is distinct enough.

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