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 mentions the tool can find or create an order, which implies mutation capabilities, but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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 clearly, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the purpose and parameters superficially but lacks behavioral context and detailed usage guidelines. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in helping an agent use it 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters ('order_name' and 'advertiser_id') and provides basic semantics ('Name of the order' and 'ID of the advertiser company'), adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format constraints, relationships between parameters, or what happens if an order with the same name exists under a different advertiser, leaving room for improvement.

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 existing order by name or create a new one.' It specifies the verb (find or create) and resource (order), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_order' or 'get_order', which would be needed for 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 implies usage context through the phrase 'Find an existing order by name or create a new one,' suggesting it should be used when you want to ensure an order exists without checking separately. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_order' or 'get_order', and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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