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 describes the verification checks performed (creative placeholders, associations, size mismatches) and mentions it returns results with issues, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation-like verification tool. This partial disclosure earns a baseline score of 3.

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, an Args section, a Checks list, and a Returns note. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the 'Args' and 'Checks' sections could be integrated more seamlessly, slightly reducing conciseness to a score of 4.

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 moderate complexity (verification with checks), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, checks, and output intent. But it lacks details on error cases or integration with siblings, preventing a perfect score. With output schema reducing burden, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal semantics: it states 'line_item_id: The line item ID to verify,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format, constraints, or examples. Since schema coverage is low, the description compensates somewhat but not fully, resulting in a score of 3.

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: 'Verify line item setup including creative placeholders and associations.' It specifies the verb 'verify' and the resource 'line item setup,' with details on what aspects are checked. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'verify_order_setup' or 'check_line_item_delivery_status,' which limits the score to 4.

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 mentions what the tool checks but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing (e.g., before approval or after creation), or comparisons to siblings like 'check_line_item_delivery_status' or 'verify_order_setup.' This lack of explicit usage context results in a score of 2.

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