Ads batch status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — results are only populated once the job is done, implying a poll-until-terminal pattern — but it omits what a pending/failed job returns and how pagination of results behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the resource first and the conditional result second. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the safety annotations are rich. Still, for a polling-status tool with three undocumented parameters, the description leaves out lifecycle details (pending vs. done vs. failed) and the meaning of limit that an agent needs to call it correctly across multiple polls.

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 0%, so the description is the only possible source of parameter meaning — and it says nothing about customer_id, batch_job, or limit. The 'per-operation results' phrase hints that limit paginates results, but that is inference rather than documentation.

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 names the specific resource (a BatchJob) and the specific operation (retrieve its status), and adds that per-operation results come back once the job completes. That clearly distinguishes it from the write-side sibling ads.batch.submit, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this after ads.batch.submit, nothing about polling cadence or terminal states, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer the entire workflow context.

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