google_ads_get_account_hierarchy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (GAQL customer_client), the scope ('accessible customers'), and an important behavioral detail: it falls back to accessible customers if hierarchy queries are unavailable. This adds meaningful transparency beyond the tool name, though it does not cover permissions or output 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is presented as a compact second sentence. Every clause contributes information.

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 tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, source, and fallback. The likely return content is inferable from 'List accessible customers... relationships.' A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling list_accounts tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with clear descriptions (includeInactive and managerCustomerId), so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('accessible customers and, where possible, manager/client relationships') sourced from GAQL customer_client. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like google_ads_list_accounts by emphasizing the hierarchy/relationship aspect and the fallback behavior.

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 hierarchy focus and fallback wording imply this tool is for retrieving account structure, but the description never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this over google_ads_list_accounts or when it is not appropriate. Usage context is present indirectly rather than stated.

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