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. It states the tool returns 'order details including all line items', which gives some behavioral insight into the output. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), error handling (e.g., what happens if no order matches), authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 structured 'Args' section and a 'Returns' statement. Each sentence earns its place by adding value (parameter guidance and output scope). It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter notes into a single flow, 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 (2 optional parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and output scope ('including all line items'), and the output schema will handle return value details. For a simple retrieval tool, this provides adequate context, though it could benefit from more behavioral transparency.

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 meaningful semantics: it explains that 'order_id' and 'order_name' are alternative identifiers (one optional if the other is provided), which clarifies their mutual exclusivity and purpose beyond the schema's basic types. This addresses the coverage gap effectively, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID integer ranges or name string patterns).

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 order details by ID or name' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('order details'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_delivering_orders' or 'find_or_create_order' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific order. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_line_item' or other retrieval tools beyond the resource type.

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 through the parameter documentation ('optional if order_name provided' and vice versa), suggesting this tool is for retrieving a specific order when you have an identifier. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'find_or_create_order' or 'list_delivering_orders', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks strategic context.

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