creative.search_adsGenerates validated Google responsive search ad copy (15 headlines, 4 descriptions within character limits) from a product and target audience using Gemini.
Generate validated responsive-search-ad copy (15 headlines <=30, 4 descriptions <=90) with Gemini.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | ||
| audience | Yes | ||
| language | No | French | |
| final_url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description contributes the character-count constraints and names the underlying generator (Gemini), but says nothing about validation failure behavior, retries, cost/latency of the model call, or whether the returned copy is persisted anywhere.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and artifact, with zero filler. The parenthetical constraints are the most valuable part and are placed immediately after the purpose statement.
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 values needn't be explained, and the safety story is covered by annotations. What remains missing for a four-parameter generation tool is any routing among sibling generators and any description of the inputs, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.
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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to do so: product, audience, language (default "French"), and final_url are never mentioned. Nothing explains what product/audience should contain or how final_url interacts with the generated copy.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Generate validated responsive-search-ad copy") and even quantifies the artifact (15 headlines <=30, 4 descriptions <=90), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling vertex.gemini.generate_ad_copy, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With a near-identical sibling (vertex.gemini.generate_ad_copy) and an adjacent packaging tool (creative.pmax_pack) in the list, the agent is left to guess which generator is appropriate and when.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.