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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of matching advertisers, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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 core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. Minor improvements could include integrating the sections more fluidly, but it's efficient overall.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return type. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance expectations, which would enhance completeness for a search operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter as 'Advertiser name to search for' and noting it's a 'partial match.' This adds crucial context beyond the bare schema, clarifying the search behavior. With only one parameter, the description effectively covers its semantics, though it could mention case sensitivity or formatting.

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: 'Find an advertiser by name (partial match).' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('advertiser'), and search method ('partial match'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_advertiser' or 'list_advertisers', which likely have different scopes or matching behaviors.

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 such as 'get_advertiser' (likely for exact matches or IDs), 'list_advertisers' (likely for unfiltered lists), or 'find_or_create_advertiser' (which combines search and creation). Without this context, users must infer usage from tool names alone.

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