direct_ads

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that Href appears only for text ads and is empty for graphic, video, and smart ads, with the count shown in ads_without_href. It also explains defaults for include_archived and limit range, transcending the annotation.

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 well-structured with a summary line, usage rationale, parameter list, and response caveat. It is somewhat repetitive about Href being present only here, but the repetition occurs in different contexts (differentiation and response behavior) and reinforces a critical point.

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?

Given an output schema exists and readOnlyHint is present, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, and a subtle data caveat (empty Href for non-text ads). An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results appropriately.

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 compensates by explaining the filter parameters (campaign_ids, ad_group_ids, ad_ids) as narrowing the selection with empty meaning all client ads. It also clarifies include_archived defaults and limit's 1–1000 range. client_login is not explained but is a self-evident required identifier.

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 opens with a clear statement of the tool's content: ads and landing pages — where ads lead, what's in headlines, whether UTM links are marked. It explicitly distinguishes itself from other report types by stating that the Href field exists only here and nowhere else, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings like direct_report.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call it when analysis reaches questions about which page a group goes to, whether it's one main page for the account, and whether there are labels — and before any conversion conclusions. It also warns about the misleading similarity of expensive clicks on irrelevant pages, which gives a concrete reason for preferring this tool.

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