google ads get landing pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'when supported' caveat, implying metric availability varies, but it does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds information. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains the resource and metric scope, though the 'when supported' condition is vague and could leave uncertainty about whether missing metrics produce nulls or omitted rows.

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 all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the output scope, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb/resource: 'Fetch landing_page_view performance', and lists the metric domains (final URL, campaign/ad group context, traffic, conversion, quality). This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from siblings by resource, but it does not explicitly call out how it differs from similar reporting 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 offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only says 'when supported' at the end, which is a caveat about metric availability, not tool selection. An agent cannot determine when to prefer this over google_ads_get_keyword_performance, google_ads_get_insights, or other sibling reporting tools.

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