google_ads_creatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Google's Ads Transparency Center), the fields returned, and a non-obvious edge case (zero ads is valid and why). It omits details like rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling, but the included behavioral insight is valuable.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields; the second sentence clarifies an important edge case. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is quite complete. It covers the core function, output fields, data source, and a critical edge case. It does not explain pagination/limit behavior, but the schema covers the limit parameter, so this is not a major gap.

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 both parameters (advertiser and limit). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, only referencing 'advertiser' generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 "every ad an advertiser is currently running" from Google's Ads Transparency Center, mentioning specific output fields (creative id, format, preview URL, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_trends_* and youtube_listing, making the purpose 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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the full set of currently running ads for a given advertiser. It also provides important interpretive guidance by noting that "an advertiser with zero ads is a real answer" and explaining why. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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