Google Ad Manager MCP Server

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. It states 'Create a new advertiser' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of returning 'created advertiser details' is minimal and doesn't fully describe output behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'Args:' section could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a creation tool in a complex sibling environment.

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. It lists the three parameters (name, email, address) and indicates that email and address are optional, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., email validation, address structure) or constraints, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Create a new advertiser') and resource ('advertiser'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_or_create_advertiser' or 'get_advertiser', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 like 'find_or_create_advertiser' or 'list_advertisers'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the advertiser must be unique or if there are any constraints on creation.

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