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 advertiser details,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are included in the return. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent fully.

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, with the core purpose stated first ('Get advertiser details by ID.') followed by parameter and return details. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns advertiser details.' sections could be more integrated for better flow. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should provide more context on how the tool behaves, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter: 'advertiser_id: The advertiser/company ID.' This clarifies that the ID refers to an advertiser or company, which is not evident from the schema alone (which only specifies 'type: integer'). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description effectively compensates by providing essential semantic information.

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: 'Get advertiser details by ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('advertiser details'), and key input ('by ID'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_advertiser' or 'list_advertisers,' which likely serve similar but distinct purposes, preventing 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. It mentions the required 'advertiser_id' but does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'find_advertiser' or 'list_advertisers' from the sibling list. This lack of usage context leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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