google ads get demand gen assets

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it says the tool resolves referenced creatives into stable image URLs and YouTube video IDs with embed/thumbnail URLs, which tells the agent what kind of output transformation to expect. 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The main purpose and scope are front-loaded, the resolved-creative format is specified precisely, and the sibling distinction is added in a single clause without 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?

Given a rich output schema, complete parameter schemas, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies exactly the missing context: which ad types are includedcy, how creatives are resolved, and how this differs from the PMax sibling tool. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is omitted.

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 all three parameters are already documented with types, defaults, bounds, and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond reinforcing that it is listing Demand Gen assets, which is baseline-appropriate when the schema already carries the burden.

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-resource pairing ('List Demand Gen ads'), enumerates the ad types (video responsive, multi-asset, carousel), and states the distinguishing deliverable: resolved stable image URLs and YouTube video IDs with embed/thumbnail URLs. It also explicitly contrasts with google_ads_get_pmax_assets, which prevents confusion with a sibling tool even before reviewing schemas.

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 names the relevant sibling tool and clarifies that the sibling covers Performance Max, implying this tool is the Demand Gen counterpart. It gives good context for selecting between the two, though it stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule.

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