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 states it 'Returns list of creatives', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (beyond the limit parameter), or error handling. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though 'Returns list of creatives' could be more specific (e.g., 'Returns a list of creative objects'). Overall, it's 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 (2 parameters, list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors) to be fully complete for agent use.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'advertiser_id: The advertiser ID' and 'limit: Maximum number of creatives to return (default: 100)'. This compensates partially, but it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., integer ranges) or usage context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with 'List creatives for an advertiser', specifying the verb ('List') and resource ('creatives'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'list_creatives_by_line_item' by specifying the advertiser scope. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_creative' (which fetches a single creative), slightly reducing specificity.

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 it over 'list_creatives_by_line_item' (for line-item-specific listing) or 'get_creative' (for single creative details), nor does it indicate prerequisites like needing an advertiser ID from tools like 'get_advertiser'.

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