ad_manager_google_get_segments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't mention whether pagination is supported, whether results are filtered by location, or what fields are returned. With no output schema, the description should provide some behavioral expectation.

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 extremely short (two words), but it is not appropriately sized—it omits essential details such as what a segment is, what the output looks like, or how it differs from related tools. While it is concise, it lacks necessary information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what segments are in this context, the effect of the 'type' parameter, or the response format. An agent would have to infer too much to use this tool correctly.

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%, and the schema provides basic descriptions for both parameters ('Segment type' and 'Location identifier...'). The tool description adds nothing beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3. However, the schema's parameter descriptions are themselves minimal (e.g., 'Segment type' is tautological), so the value provided is limited.

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 segments' states a verb and resource but is extremely vague. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'ad_manager_google_get_segment_by_id', which presumably retrieves a single segment, nor does it clarify what type of segments (e.g., audience, ad groups) are being retrieved. The name itself is more informative 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ad_manager_google_get_segment_by_id' or even the upsert/delete segment tools. The description fails to mention the intended use case (e.g., listing all segments) or any prerequisites.

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