Get Asset Performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral fact: the Google performance label (BEST/GOOD/LOW) is no longer available, and results are ranked by impressions. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements, pagination, or limits. For a simple 'get' tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, the first front-loads the core purpose and the second adds a critical behavioral note about the removed performance label. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered. The description provides the key limitation (label removal) and the ranking criterion, which is essential context. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but the tool is straightforward and the schema covers parameter details. Overall, it is fairly complete for a get-asset-performance tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (date_range, manager_id, customer_id) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('performance of responsive search ad assets (headlines and descriptions)'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that target campaigns, ad groups, ads, or keywords. It also adds the ranking-by-impressions detail, leaving no ambiguity about what data is returned.

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 the tool is for asset-level performance (headlines/descriptions) but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like get_ad_performance or get_campaign_performance. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools.

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