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 mentions that the tool returns 'a list of orders with their delivering line items, including impression and click statistics,' which adds some context about output content. However, it fails to address critical behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects, which are significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place without any wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 that there is an output schema (which should detail the return values), the description does not need to explain return values, and it adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, the description lacks completeness in terms of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively in context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate in this case. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for any gaps in schema coverage.

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: 'List all orders with line items currently delivering ads.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('orders with line items currently delivering ads'), which is precise. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_line_items_by_order' or 'run_delivery_report', which might offer overlapping functionality, so it misses the top 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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_line_items_by_order' or 'run_delivery_report', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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