companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses authentication (OAuth 2.0 required), credit costs (reads=0, writes=0.5 credits), and a key side effect (archive_advertiser deactivates the company). It also describes the output format. This covers critical behavioral traits, though side effects for other actions are not detailed.

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 and well-structured, with clear sections (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, SIDE EFFECTS, WHEN TO USE). Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (12 sub-actions, 3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides key context: output summary, side effects, authentication, and credits. The action schema descriptions cover sub-action details. The description is largely complete, though more explicit error handling or per-action specifics could be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their descriptions thoroughly (including enum options for 'action'). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what's in the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manage GAM companies — advertisers, agencies, and contacts.' It provides a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('GAM companies'), and sets context by noting that companies are required before creating orders, distinguishing it from order-related sibling tools.

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 explains the tool is for managing advertiser/agency entities before creating orders. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternative tools. The guidance is clear and helpful.

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