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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'comprehensive verification' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., validation checks, error reporting, or audit trails). It doesn't address permissions, side effects, or response format beyond the generic 'Returns comprehensive verification'.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Both sentences earn their place by defining scope and output, though the return statement is somewhat vague ('comprehensive verification').

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 operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks details on verification criteria, error handling, or how results are structured, relying on the output schema for return value specifics.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'order_id' by specifying it's 'The order ID to verify', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's type definition (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could provide format examples or constraints.

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 as verifying order setup including all line items, using specific verbs ('verify') and resources ('order setup', 'line items'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'verify_line_item_setup' by focusing on the complete order rather than individual line items, though it doesn't explicitly name this distinction.

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 verification is needed, prerequisites, or how it differs from related tools like 'get_order' or 'verify_line_item_setup', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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