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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait (only non-REMOVED ad groups are returned) but otherwise spends its words enumerating return fields, which the output schema already provides.

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?

Purpose and workflow placement are front-loaded, but the long enumeration of returned fields is redundant given an output schema and dilutes the signal. It is efficient overall but not maximally tight.

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?

Covers purpose, scope, workflow position, and links the Google Ads API docs; with an output schema present it need not explain returns. It could note filtering limits or pagination behavior for large accounts, but nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there (campaign_id filtering, customer_id default). The description adds nothing beyond the schema about parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('AI Max controls of Search campaigns'), scoped per campaign and ad group. No sibling in the list reads AI Max settings, so the tool is immediately distinguishable.

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 positions the tool in the workflow: use it to see current state 'ahead of draft_ai_max_settings' and after 'confirm_and_apply'. The agent knows both the alternatives and when each applies.

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