audience_segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are filtered by type and an optional query, which is useful behavior context, but it omits result volume, pagination, and whether an empty query returns everything.

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 purpose and return behavior are front-loaded in two short sentences, followed by a compact Args list. No sentence is wasted, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose for only two parameters.

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 simple two-parameter read-only listing tool, and the description covers what it does, what it returns, and the meaning of both parameters. With annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the remaining omissions (pagination, result limits) are minor.

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 carries the burden and does so: it enumerates the three segment_type values ("IN_MARKET", "AFFINITY", "LIFE_EVENTS") that the schema does not constrain via enum, and gives concrete query examples ("fitness", "travel"). The only gap is that it does not restate the IN_MARKET default or note that both parameters are optional.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Browse Google Ads audience segments for campaign targeting," and the second line states what is returned and how it is filtered. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from adjacent tools such as audience_recommendations or demographic_options.

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 phrase "for campaign targeting" implies the context of use, and the Args block hints that segment_type selects the flavor of segment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative for related lookups like recommendations or demographics.

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