gads_rsa_asset_performance

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

Annotations are absent, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It states the tool outputs performance labels but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is minimal beyond purpose.

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 sentences, efficiently conveying the core function and value. Every word contributes to understanding, with no extraneous information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not detail the return format or structure of the asset labels. It provides a high-level interpretation guide ('keep, test, or replace') but lacks specifics on how the data is returned, which may limit agent understanding for programmatic use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions are fully provided in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond their definitions, resulting in no incremental value.

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 states the tool provides asset-level performance labels (BEST/GOOD/LOW/PENDING/LEARNING) for RSA headlines and descriptions, specifying the purpose of identifying which assets to keep, test, or replace. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gads_list_assets by focusing on performance labels rather than listing assets.

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 when needing RSA asset performance labels, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gads_keyword_performance or gads_ad_group_performance. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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