Ads.Fields.Deltas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the data is 'Curated' and version-scoped, but does not state whether the result is static or live, read-only, freshness expectations, permissions, or any other operational behavior.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and scannable, though the extreme brevity leaves important selection context unstated.

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?

The output schema exists and there are no parameters, so return values need not be explained in the description. However, with no annotations and no sibling routing, the description still leaves the agent to infer when this tool is preferable to related field/version tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics gap to compensate for. Per the scoring baseline, a no-parameter tool receives a 4 here.

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 resource and scope precisely: 2026 field/view/resource deltas covering v22 to v26. It is clear enough for an agent to infer the tool returns version-difference data, though it omits an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with siblings like ads.fields.new_views or ads.api.version_delta.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the description alone that this is the v22-to-v26 delta reference tool rather than a live query or new-view listing.

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