get_asset_group_details

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

Annotations already communicate that the operation is read-only and open-world. The description adds that the result includes linked assets and signals, but it does not disclose response structure, pagination, or other behavioral traits. Given annotation coverage, 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?

The description is short and front-loads the core purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but because the schema has no field descriptions, the inline arg annotations still provide some value. Overall it is concise and not bloated.

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 relatively simple read-only retrieval with two required parameters and no output schema. The description states what the result covers ('linked assets and signals'), but 'full details' remains vague and no return structure is described. It is minimally viable but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 must compensate. It provides 'Google Ads customer ID' for customer_id, which adds meaning, but asset_group_id is merely restated as 'Asset Group ID' with no format or example. The compensation is partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('asset group') and clarifies the scope: 'full details' including 'linked assets and signals.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from list_asset_groups, which lists groups rather than retrieving one group's details.

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 that this tool is for retrieving detailed information about a single asset group, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_asset_groups or get_asset_performance. Usage context is present but only by implication.

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