get_resource_metadata

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

The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is appropriate. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose any restrictions (e.g., permission requirements) or return format details. The output schema covers the structure, so a score of 3 is adequate.

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 sentence that conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. The description is front-loaded and concise.

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 simple metadata tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it could clarify how the returned fields are used (e.g., in queries) and whether the response includes types or constraints. Still, it meets the minimal needs.

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 schema covers the parameter fully (100% description coverage), and the description adds helpful examples like 'campaign' and 'ad_group', which clarifies the expected values. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all available fields for a resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that return actual resource data. However, it could be more precise (e.g., 'field names and metadata for query construction') and doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar metadata tools like get_metrics_metadata.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_campaigns or get_metrics_metadata. The agent must infer usage from context. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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