ghl_ad_google_reporting_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the tool as a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), API version, and OAuth scopes, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or data freshness beyond what annotations imply.

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, with technical details appended. It is concise and free of fluff, though the first sentence 'Get reporting list' is redundant with the tool name. The structure could be improved by front-loading the most important purpose.

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?

The description lacks critical context: it does not mention that listType can be other values (e.g., ads, keywords) or that campaignId is required for certain listTypes. With no output schema, the agent has no information about the return structure, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters with examples and descriptions. The description adds no new meaning beyond stating the tool retrieves a list of campaigns or ad groups, which aligns with schema but does not elaborate on parameter constraints or dependencies.

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 it retrieves a list of Google campaigns or ad groups with reporting data, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ghl_ad_google_reporting_get' (singular) and 'ghl_ad_google_campaign_get' (specific campaign), though it does not fully enumerate all listType options (e.g., ads, keywords).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'ghl_ad_google_reporting_get' or 'ghl_ad_google_campaign_get'. It only includes technical details like endpoint and OAuth scopes, but no contextual advice.

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