gads_impression_share

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool calculates impression share metrics and identifies limiting factors, but lacks mention of necessary permissions, data freshness, or any side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only query.

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 concise sentences with essential information front-loaded, containing no superfluous words.

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?

The description explains the metrics returned but does not detail output format or granularity. Given no output schema and the tool's complexity (campaign-level data from Google Ads), more specifics would be beneficial but the core is covered.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (customer_id, start_date, end_date). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the tool returns 'Search Impression Share, Lost IS (Budget), and Lost IS (Rank) per campaign' and identifies whether budget or Quality Score/bid is limiting reach, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gads_campaign_performance.

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 use for impression share diagnostics per campaign but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to avoid it, though the context is clear enough.

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