ads.get

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

The description's 'reading' note is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) but adds nothing beyond them. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so there is no contradiction, but the description provides no extra behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or response expectations.

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 visible description is short and front-loaded: one clear sentence plus a documentation link. The leading HTML source comment is irrelevant noise for an agent, which prevents a 5, but there is no other wasted text.

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?

This is a complex 19-parameter tool with nested objects, and there is no output schema to document return values. The description does not mention response shape, how SelectionCriteria interacts with the various type-specific FieldNames arrays, or pagination behavior. The rich schema and annotations prevent a 1, but the description is far from complete on its own.

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 itself contributes no parameter-level meaning. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having an inline description and references to direct_fields/direct_schema, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule, this warrants a 3 rather than a higher score.

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 states that this is the ads service's 'get' method for reading, which identifies the verb and resource clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling get methods like direct_adgroups_get, but the resource name 'ads' makes the target entity unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says it is a read method, which is implied by the annotations and tool name, but it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from direct_campaigns_get or direct_adgroups_get.

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