google_ads_get_budgets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is a read ('List') and that some fields are conditional ('when supported'), which is useful, but it leaves pagination via the limit parameter, the meaning of 'when supported,' and empty/error behavior unexplained. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource first, then appends the distinguishing field list with no filler. The 'when supported' caveat adds needed nuance without bloating the description.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of statusFilter, does not explain limit or pagination, and leaves 'when supported' ambiguous, so an agent still cannot invoke it confidently beyond supplying the required customerId.

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 only 33% (only customerId is described), so the description must compensate for limit and statusFilter, but it does not. statusFilter's filtering role and limit's pagination role remain undocumented in both schema and description; the listed fields describe output rows, not input semantics.

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 distinct resource ('campaign budgets'), then enumerates the distinguishing return fields ('amount, status, delivery method, and recommended budget fields'). Among siblings such as google_ads_get_campaigns and google_ads_get_bidding_strategies, this is the only tool targeting budgets, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It contains no exclusions, no reference to sibling tools, and no conditions such as 'use when budget-level data is needed.' Applicability must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the field list.

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