ad_review_center

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that operations are mixed (read/write), requires OAuth 2.0, and notes credit costs for read vs write. It describes what each action does but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error handling.

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 concise, using short sections (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE). Every sentence adds value; no filler. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, sub-actions, auth, credit costs, and output type. It lacks details on pagination, error handling, and search filters, but is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with detailed enum descriptions for 'action' and clear type for 'network_code'. The description adds overall context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it is for searching and moderating Ad Exchange creatives in GAM Ad Review Center. The verb-resource pair is specific ('search and moderate' + 'Ad Exchange creatives'), and the context ('GAM Ad Review Center') clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'creatives' which handle different ad operations.

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?

The description includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section that specifies the scenario: finding, allowing, or blocking marketplace creatives before they serve. It also notes the mode (mixed), auth requirement, and credit costs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other ad operations.

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