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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether this is safe/non-mutating, what the response will contain, or whether there are any side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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 filler or redundant words. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of needed guidance, so it is efficient but slightly over-terse.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented channel_type parameter, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It does not explain what the returned 'asset requirements' look like, what channel_type values are accepted, or how this tool fits into the broader asset workflow.

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 50%: customer_id is documented, but channel_type only has a type string with no description or enum. The description merely repeats 'Google Ads channel type' without listing valid values or explaining how the parameter affects the returned requirements, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear action ('Return') against a clear resource ('asset requirements') scoped to 'Google Ads channel type'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling asset tools like google_ads_assets_list, but the resource and verb are unambiguous enough that an agent can infer its read/get purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is a lookup tool from its name and description alone, which is not sufficient among dozens of asset-related siblings.

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