google ads get bidding strategies

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary: metrics are included only when startDate/endDate are provided, otherwise only structure is returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the response shape.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('List portfolio bidding strategies'), and the conditional behavior follows immediately. 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 listing tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the conditional metric behavior, and the structural fallback. It does not discuss pagination or alternative tools, but those are minor gaps given the existing structured metadata.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the cross-parameter dependency between startDate/endDate and the presence of metrics, which the individual schema descriptions only hint at with 'for metrics'. It does not need to restate parameter syntax or defaults.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('portfolio bidding strategies'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like google_ads_get_campaigns or google_ads_get_budgets by naming a distinct entity. The conditional note about metrics adds useful precision without blurring the core purpose.

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 when to use the tool by naming its resource and by explaining that metrics require date parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large sibling list, this is adequate rather than strong guidance.

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