Suggest bid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds that both a minimum and a suggested value are returned in micro-currency, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or network/credit implications despite openWorldHint.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the returned resources, and including the unit compactly in parentheses. Every clause 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?

For a read-only suggest tool with one required nested parameter and a fully documented schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned despite there being no output schema. It does not explain why a full ad-group-like specification (duration, targeting, objective) is needed to get a bid estimate, a minor 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 the nested data object and its fields. The description's only added semantic is the micro-currency unit, which pertains more to the return values than to the input, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('minimum and suggested bid values ... for a planned ad group'), plus the unit (micro-currency). No sibling tool offers bid suggestion, so it is distinguishable without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'for a planned ad group' implies the tool is used pre-creation of an ad group, which is genuine usage context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative. It is implied usage rather than stated guidance.

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