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 explains what the tool generates (a preview URL that loads the site with creative displayed) and that the URL can be opened in a browser, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if the URL is time-limited, rate limits, or whether it triggers any side effects in the system.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, elaboration of what the preview does, organized parameter explanations with an example, and a clear returns statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and the description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema coverage, this is quite complete. The only gap is the lack of behavioral context about permissions, URL expiration, or side effects, which would be valuable for a preview generation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: clearly explaining what each parameter represents (line_item_id, creative_id, site_url) and giving a concrete example for site_url ('e.g., "https://abc.com"'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 specific action ('Get a preview URL') and the target resource ('for a creative associated with a line item'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_creative or get_line_item which retrieve metadata rather than generate previews. The verb 'generates' further clarifies this is a creation/rendering operation rather than a simple retrieval.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: when you need to see how a creative will appear on a specific site. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_creative (which returns creative metadata without preview) or verify_line_item_setup (which might check creative compatibility).

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