google ads get account hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting it falls back to accessible customers when hierarchy queries are unavailable. This is valuable beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for variable output depending on API availability.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. Key behavior is front-loaded, and the fallback note is concise but informative. 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?

For a read-only tool with full parameter schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the core behavior and edge-case fallback. Nothing essential for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 well. The description does not add explicit parameter-level detail, but that is not necessary given complete schema coverage; 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 clearly states the tool lists accessible customers and manager/client relationships from GAQL customer_client, with a specific verb and resource. The fallback behavior further clarifies what the tool does when hierarchy queries are unavailable, distinguishing it from generic account-listing tools.

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 the tool is for retrieving account hierarchy information but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like google_ads_list_accounts or google_ads_get_account_details. The use case is reasonably clear from context, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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