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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world lookup. The description adds useful context about returning IDs for display targeting, but it does not explain matching behavior, result limits, pagination, or what happens when no topic matches.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It efficiently conveys the action, result, and intended consumer.

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 read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and schema descriptions covering most parameters, the definition is largely complete. It explains the return purpose and downstream use, though it could add minor behavior around empty results or matching semantics.

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 75%, with folder, account, and language documented in the schema. The query parameter lacks a schema description, but the description's 'by name' clarifies that it is a topic-name search, which partially compensates without adding format or matching details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Google's Display topic categories by name and return their IDs.' It also names the downstream tool, google_ads_display_targeting, which distinguishes this lookup from siblings such as google_ads_find_audiences and google_ads_find_locations.

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 phrase 'for google_ads_display_targeting' gives a clear intended use case: obtaining topic IDs to feed display targeting. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative lookup tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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