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 mentions a timeout parameter but does not address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement, detailed parameter explanations, and a returns section. While slightly verbose due to listing all parameters, each sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers parameter semantics thoroughly and mentions return data, though it could better address behavioral aspects like safety or performance, which are not fully compensated by the output schema alone.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of all 10 parameters, including date_range_type options, conditional usage for CUSTOM_DATE fields, defaults for include_date_breakdown and timeout_seconds, and the optional nature of ad_unit_id, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Run an inventory report') and resource ('for ad units'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_custom_report' or 'run_delivery_report' by specifying the report type and breakdown metrics (ad requests, impressions, fill rate).

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 for generating inventory reports with date ranges and optional filtering, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'run_custom_report' or 'run_delivery_report', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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