google-ads-transparency

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data scope. It discloses none of these and does not even imply whether the operation is read-only or mutating.

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 text is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It front-loads nothing useful and contains only a version marker and a restatement of the name.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague definition. Given the low schema coverage, the description must carry substantial context, but it provides none, leaving the agent unable to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the count or advertiserId parameters. The names are mildly suggestive but the description contributes zero insight over the schema itself.

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 'V1 Ads Google Advertiser' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without stating any verb, action, or resource behavior. An agent cannot determine whether this fetches data, creates something, or mutates an advertiser.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like ads_google_advertiser_history, ads_google_creative, or ads_google_suggestions. There is no context, prerequisite, or exclusionary note.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails entirely. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, how far back history goes, whether pagination applies, or what happens for an invalid advertiserId.

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 extremely sparse and reads as a title label rather than a concise, purposeful description. It contains only the version prefix 'V1' and the tool name, which is under-specification rather than efficient brevity.

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?

Despite the tool being relatively simple with one parameter, the description is incomplete for practical invocation. It does not define the input semantics, output shape, or any behavioral expectations, leaving the agent with almost no contextual basis for a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the advertiserId parameter but does not. The single parameter is not explained anywhere in the description; the name 'advertiserId' is helpful but comes from the schema, not the description, so no additional semantic value is added.

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 'V1 Ads Google Advertiser History' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not include a verb or clearly define the operation. It suggests an advertiser history resource but fails to specify whether the tool retrieves, lists, or searches history, and provides no differentiation from siblings like ads_google_advertiser.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings or what kind of history it covers. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent without any decision-support for selecting this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior. The phrase 'V1' only signals versioning and adds no operational transparency.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It contains no substantive information about the tool's purpose, behavior, or parameters.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis for selecting the tool, constructing a valid call, or interpreting the result.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. An agent cannot infer whether creativeId and advertiserId are required, optional, or how they relate to each other, since the schema only provides names and default null values.

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 'V1 Ads Google Creative' is essentially a label, not an explanation. It names a domain area ('Google Creative') and a version ('V1') but contains no verb or action, so an agent cannot tell whether this tool creates, reads, updates, or deletes a creative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as ads_google_advertiser, ads_google_advertiser_history, or ads_google_suggestions. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or alternative routing information.

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

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, read-only vs. mutating behavior, output format, or failure modes. 'V1 Ads Google Suggestions' provides no behavioral information at all.

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 extremely short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It consists of a version label and the tool name, so no sentence earns its place as useful guidance.

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?

Even though there is only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's core function, return value, or relationship to siblings. This is not adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'keyword' parameter beyond its name and default null. The agent receives no guidance about expected value format, meaning, or effect.

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 'V1 Ads Google Suggestions' merely restates the tool name and a version marker; it contains no verb or resource to indicate what the tool does. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like ads_google_advertiser or ads_google_creative.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. An agent cannot determine appropriate invocation context from the description alone.

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