ad_manager_google_get_ad_account_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the adAccountId does not exist, whether locationId is required in certain contexts, or any response format details. With no extra disclosure beyond the annotation, the description fails to enrich the agent's understanding.

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 an extremely concise single sentence, which avoids any bloat. It is appropriately brief for a simple get operation. However, it borders on under-specification because it omits any qualifying details, but given the tool's simplicity, this level of brevity is acceptable.

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 has only two parameters, both documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain what 'details' include, whether there is any pagination, or how it differs from the plural 'get_ad_accounts.' For a getter with a single required identifier, this is a minimum-viable definition, but it leaves room for ambiguity about scope.

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 100% — both adAccountId and locationId have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the purpose of locationId or any constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds marginal value.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('ad account details'), which is specific enough for a simple getter. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like ad_manager_google_get_ad_accounts (which likely lists accounts) or ad_manager_li_get_ad_account_details (the LinkedIn variant). The singular/plural difference is implicit but not stated, so the agent must infer the differentiation from the name rather than the description.

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 does not mention that it is a single-account lookup, nor does it contrast with listing tools or cross-platform variants. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for routing to the correct sibling.

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