Ads.Report.Ai Max

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, yet it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, row limits, latency, or cost. Only the word "report" implicitly signals a non-mutating read, which is the barest minimum.

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 single fragment is technically concise but is under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded statement of action or scope that an agent could act on.

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 presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but with zero annotations, zero schema description coverage, and a jargon-only purpose line, an agent cannot reliably decide whether to call this or how to scope it.

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% and the description adds no information about the two parameters. It does not explain what customer_id identifies (a Google Ads customer account) or how date_range values are formatted or accepted beyond the schema's default.

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?

"AI Max matched-location-interest report" essentially restates the tool name (ads.report.ai_max) with a slightly elaborated label. There is no verb, no statement of what the report actually contains or returns, and no differentiation from siblings like ads.report.campaign, ads.report.pmax_asset_groups, or ads.gaql.query.

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 given on when to use this report versus the other ads.report.* tools or ads.gaql.query. The agent must guess from the name alone, and nothing indicates preconditions or exclusions.

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