Search Search

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=true, which already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context—nothing about pagination, limits, error handling, or response format. It fails to enrich the annotation-provided information.

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 only one sentence and is technically concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly useless. It does not front-load critical information or structure the content in a way that helps an agent understand the tool's scope. The brevity is a deficiency, not a virtue.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with 3 required parameters, yet the description provides no context about what the tool actually accomplishes beyond a generic 'search'. It lacks any explanation of the query syntax, the relationship between fields and resource, or expected output. Given the complexity, the description is grossly incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not compensate with any additional clarifications about parameter relationships or formatting.

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 states a verb ('Fetches data') and a resource ('Google Ads API') but is extremely vague about what kind of data or which resources are searchable. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like metadata_get_resource_metadata or customers_list_accessible_customers, making it unclear when this tool is the right choice.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. No mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent has to infer that this is a general search tool, but the description gives no contextual hints about when it should be preferred.

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