get_policy_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states behavioral traits: summary returns a bounded topic histogram and entity-status breakdown, while full paginates with filters. The explicit 'never an unbounded dump' warning improves transparency. It does not cover permissions or data freshness, but the described behaviors are substantial and useful.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the resource and scope, then packs mode behavior, output shape, filters, and a safety guarantee into the second sentence. Every clause adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior well: summary output and full-mode pagination. But it leaves page_token and customer_id undefined, and it doesn't clarify what full mode returns per page (only that it paginates). These gaps prevent it from being fully complete for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of mode=summary vs full and names the filters enabled_only, campaign_id, and topic. However, it omits page_token and customer_id semantics, leaving two of six parameters unexplained. Partial compensation but incomplete.

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 names the resource as 'policy issues' and specifies the exact scope: ads, PMax asset-group assets, and campaign-linked sitelink assets. It also differentiates the two modes (summary vs full), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the domain is distinctive enough to stand apart.

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 gives clear within-tool guidance: summary mode is bounded, full mode paginates with filters, and there is never an unbounded dump. This tells an agent when to use each mode and signals the tool is appropriate for inspecting policy issues. It does not mention cross-tool alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over performance-focused siblings.

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