google ads get account details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the 'Get' wording is consistent with that read-only profile. The description adds little beyond the annotations, but it does not contradict 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?

A single sentence states the purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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?

The tool is simple, has one fully documented required parameter, an output schema, and a safety profile covered by annotations. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation, but that is already accounted for under usage guidelines.

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?

The schema fully documents customerId, including the no-dashes format and an example, so parameter semantics are already well covered. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for a specific Google Ads customer account'), clearly indicating a single-account lookup. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_accounts or get_account_hierarchy, but 'specific' helps signal the point-lookup scope.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_accounts or get_account_hierarchy. The only usage signal is the implied need for one account's details, with no conditions, exclusions, or context.

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