google_ads_transparency

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, so the description does not need to justify safety. It adds context beyond annotations by stating the output includes ad creatives, target domains, and links, and by warning to use a domain rather than a brand name for advertiser_name. This gives useful behavioral insight without contradicting annotations.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence summary of return values, and a clearly formatted Args block. Every part is relevant and there is no unnecessary wording.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains return values in one sentence. It also covers three of four parameters with helpful defaults and examples. The missing 'config' parameter and lack of any guidance on pagination or rate limitations prevent a perfect score, but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward read-only tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description takes on the burden of explaining parameters. It documents advertiser_name, region (with default and common codes), and limit (with default and max). However, the 'config' parameter from the schema is entirely undocumented, which is a notable gap.

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: 'See what Google Ads a competitor is running via the Ads Transparency Center.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like competitor_ads and meta_ads_library by focusing on Google Ads and the transparency center.

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 provides clear context: it is for viewing a competitor's Google Ads via the Ads Transparency Center. It also gives usage guidance for the advertiser_name parameter ('Use domain, not just brand name'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like google_ads_data for own ads or meta_ads_library for Facebook ads, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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