ad_manager_google_get_target_interests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations imply – it doesn't mention that it returns a list, whether location filtering is optional, or any side effects. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description contributes nothing extra, warranting a below-average score.

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 (3 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not front-load any actionable detail. It parallels the 'Process' example in being too sparse to be useful.

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?

With two required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how parameters influence the result. It doesn't. It also fails to clarify the meaning of 'target interests' in the Google Ads context. Given the complexity of ad targeting, this description is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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% – each parameter (type, locationId, advertisingChannelType) has a basic description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not improve on it.

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 target interests' restates the tool name almost exactly, providing no additional specifics. It does identify the verb (get) and resource (target interests), but gives no detail on what constitutes a target interest, its scope, or how it differs from sibling tools like ad_manager_google_get_audiences or ad_manager_google_search_targeting.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or typical use cases. An agent reading this alone would have no idea when to select it over the many other ad_manager_google_* tools.

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