Google Ads Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context that secret values are not revealed, which is a key behavioral trait for an audit tool. No contradictions.

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 sentence that lists all components without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action. Could be slightly improved by structuring the list, but current form is efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to elaborate on return values. It conveys the purpose and the important constraint (no secret values revealed). The tool's complexity (multiple components) is adequately addressed for an audit context.

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 fully defines the only parameter (response_format) with enum and default. The description does not mention this parameter, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema coverage is effectively 100% from the schema itself.

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 returns specific privacy-related posture components (local privacy, mutation-gate, cache, etc.), using the verb 'Return' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like google_ads_cache_status and google_ads_agent_manifest which serve different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools with overlapping audit/status functions, but the description provides no contextual cues for choosing this over others.

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