Search

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond what annotations already state. It does not mention rate limits, pagination/limit behavior, permission requirements, or that it is a general read-query escape hatch.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing of useful content.

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?

For a generic query tool with three required and three optional parameters manipulated in combination (resource + fields + conditions), the description is far too thin. Although an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, the agent gets no help composing a valid query or routing to more specialized siblings.

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% and all six parameters (fields, resource, conditions, orderings, limit, customer_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 essentially restates the tool name and title ("search" → "using the search method") plus a generic "fetches data from the Google Ads API." It does not say what kind of data, what query dialect is used, or how it differs from the many specific sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or list_campaign_criteria.

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 at all. With roughly thirty sibling tools, the agent is given no signal about when this generic query tool is preferable to the dedicated report/list tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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