competitor_ads

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the description adds that results include headlines, descriptions, and target keywords. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or error responses, which is acceptable given the simple read-only nature but not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a sufficient sense of result content (headlines, descriptions, keywords) and required inputs. The omission of the 'config' parameter and lack of error-handling details leave minor gaps, but overall it is fairly complete for its 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?

The description documents 'domain' with an example and 'country' with a default, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'config' parameter in the schema is completely undocumented, leaving a gap in parameter coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('competitor's Google Ads copy') with elaborated content (headlines, descriptions, target keywords), clearly distinguishing it from broader tools like competitor_analysis or google_ads_data.

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 implies usage for retrieving competitor ad copy but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as google_ads_transparency or competitor_analysis. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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