ad_manager_google_get_assets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of what data is returned, whether it supports pagination, or any side effects. For a read-only operation it is acceptable but lacks any additional behavioral context that annotations do not already provide.

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 two words, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to include any of the context an agent needs. The structure is not front-loaded; there is simply too little information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how the parameters affect results. It does neither. It does not explain that 'type' is required or that 'id' is optional, nor does it note the default for locationId. The description is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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%, so all four parameters are described in the schema (e.g., type is 'Asset type to retrieve'). The tool description itself adds no extra semantics about parameter interplay, defaults, or how to filter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but provides no bonus 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 'Get assets' is a bare verb-noun phrase that adds almost no context. While the tool name hints at Google Ads, the description does not specify what kind of assets (e.g., text, image, call) or the scope (e.g., by advertiser or location). It barely distinguishes from other 'get' tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this when you need asset details by type' or contrast with ad_manager_google_upsert_assets or ad_manager_google_get_entity. An agent has no help deciding when this is the right call.

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