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 full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. The mention of return details is minimal and doesn't cover format or structure beyond mentioning 'size and destination URL'.

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 a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (single parameter, simple retrieval) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema reduces the need for detailed return explanations.

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 adds that 'creative_id' is 'The creative ID', which provides basic semantics but lacks details like format constraints, valid ranges, or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the minimal added value reduces this to 3.

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 creative details by ID' specifies the verb (get) and resource (creative details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_creatives_by_advertiser' by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_creative_preview_url' which also retrieves creative-related data.

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 when to choose 'get_creative' over 'list_creatives_by_advertiser' or 'get_creative_preview_url', nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The only implied usage is when you have a creative ID, but this is obvious from the parameter.

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