Google Ad Manager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'delivery progress including impressions, clicks, and goal progress,' which adds some behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by brief sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, delivery-focused), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return content. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like safety or constraints.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'line_item_id' is 'The line item ID to check,' clarifying its role. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., integer range). Baseline would be 3 if schema coverage were high, but here it's effective.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check detailed delivery status for a line item.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('line item'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_line_item' (which likely retrieves basic metadata) by focusing on delivery metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'run_delivery_report' (which might be broader), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_line_item' (for general info) or 'run_delivery_report' (for broader reporting), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., only for active line items). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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