google ads get budgets

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds modest context by naming the returned fields and noting that some are only present 'when supported,' which hints at conditional output. It does not describe pagination behavior, default filters, or how statusFilter interacts with results, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource, lists the relevant fields, and appends a concise caveat. There is no redundant phrasing or repetition of schema content.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with full parameter documentation and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It names the resource, key output fields, and the conditional nature of some fields; the agent can correctly invoke it with the documented customerId and optional filters.

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 input schema already fully documents customerId, limit, and statusFilter. The description references output fields rather than adding new meaning to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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') with a clear resource ('campaign budgets') and enumerates the key returned fields (amount, status, delivery method, recommended budget). This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_get_campaigns or google_ads_get_adgroups by the resource type.

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 campaign budget data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools or mention alternatives such as google_ads_run_gaql for custom queries. The usage context is inferable from the resource name and fields, but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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