get_labeled_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action and does not mention return format, pagination, whether multiple resource types are included, or how empty results are handled. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for the agent.

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 a single, concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it may be too terse to capture necessary nuances, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 tool is simple with only 2 well-documented parameters, but the lack of an output schema and annotations creates ambiguity about the response structure. The ambiguous 'resources' term also prevents the agent from knowing the tool's full scope. This is a minimally viable description but not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 already describes both parameters (labelId and customerId) with 100% coverage. The description 'by label' adds minimal context by indicating that labelId is the filter key, but it does not explain the role of customerId beyond what the schema implies (account scope). The description adds little value over the schema.

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 'Find resources by label' uses a clear verb and identifies the core functionality (label filtering). However, the term 'resources' is vague and does not clarify which Google Ads entity types (campaigns, ad groups, ads, etc.) are returned, making it ambiguous relative to sibling tools like get_campaigns or get_ad_groups.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, without mentioning scenarios, limitations, or suggesting other tools for different use cases, such as querying specific resource types directly.

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