get_google_ads_hourly_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the exact metric set returned per bucket and the important behavioral fact that hours are in the advertiser's Google Ads time zone. It omits read-only confirmation, row-volume/limits, and date-default behavior, but the timezone and metric disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the breakdown shape, the second gives usage and metric list. No filler, and the most distinctive information (hour/day buckets) leads.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned metrics and the bucket dimensions, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Missing only edge detail like empty-bucket behavior or row limits, which is minor for an aggregate report.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema (client_id, campaign_ids, customer_ids, date range defaults). The description adds only the timezone interpretation, which is bucket semantics rather than parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) plus resource (Google Ads performance) and the exact breakdown axes (hour-of-day 0–23, day-of-week MONDAY–SUNDAY, per campaign). This cleanly separates it from get_google_ads_campaign_performance and the other non-hourly siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the use case (dayparting / ad-schedule analysis) and the downstream action it informs (ad_schedule bid adjustments). It does not name a competing sibling to route away from, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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