get_ad_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic read operation. It does not disclose return shape, not-found behavior, or the implications of openWorldHint, such as potentially varying returned fields. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little value beyond them.

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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded, and the Args block is minimal with no padding. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though the parameter lines add only marginal value over the schema titles.

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?

For a simple read-by-ID tool with two required string parameters and readOnlyHint, the description is minimally viable: an agent can construct a valid call. However, because there is no output schema and no description of return content or error behavior, completeness is only partial.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only provides generic glosses like 'Google Ads customer ID' and 'Ad group ID,' which essentially restate the parameter titles. It adds no format, validation, or relationship information, so it does not adequately compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Get details for a single ad group.' The word 'single' distinguishes it from list_ad_groups, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_ad_group_performance or get_ad_details, leaving some ambiguity about whether 'details' means entity fields or performance data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_ad_groups, get_ad_group_performance, or other sibling retrieval tools. The Args block only documents parameters; no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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