google ads get pmax placements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the data source (performance_max_placement_view) and the exact fields returned, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the schema's limit parameter description already covers pagination behavior.

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?

The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the key facts: read-only, Performance Max placement diagnostics, data source, and returned fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and the data source. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the field list and resource name already provide enough context for an agent to select it correctly.

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 7 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, only implying that placementType and placementContains are filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Performance Max placement diagnostics'), and the data source ('performance_max_placement_view'). It also lists the exact fields returned (placement type, display name, target URL, campaign context, impressions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_get_pmax_assets or google_ads_get_pmax_asset_diagnostics. The 'Read-only' prefix further clarifies its nature.

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 usage for Performance Max placement diagnostics and the read-only nature suggests when it is safe to use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_ads_get_pmax_assets or google_ads_get_pmax_asset_diagnostics, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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