google_ads_get_insights

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two important behaviors: GAQL is auto-generated and incompatible metric/segment combinations cause query splitting. It does not state expected output shape, whether results are merged across splits, pagination/limit handling, or confirm read-only semantics, so some transparency gaps remain.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, behavior second, and value references third. No filler or redundancy; every clause contributes.

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?

The tool is complex (10 params,no output schema,no annotations), so the description needs to cover return format, date semantics, and split-query result handling. It covers auto-generation and splitting at a high level, but an agent still lacks enough detail to predict the response or configure dates/order/limits correctly without opening the schema.

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 coverage is high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by pointing to google-ads://metrics and google-ads://dimesions as authoritative sources for valid values, which is helpful given metrics and dimensions are free-form string arrays. It doesn't explain every parameter, but the schema already handles most of them.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Query Google Ads performance insights') and distinctive behaviors ('Auto-generates GAQL', 'handles metric/segment incompatibilities by splitting queries') that separate it from raw-GAQL execution (google_ads_run_gaql) and from fixed-view getters like google_ads_get_campaigns. This is enough for an agent to know what the tool does at a glance.

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: users should call this when they need flexible metric/dimension combinations and don't want to hand-write GAQL, especially when incompatible metrics/segments require splitting. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over google_ads_run_gaql or the specialized getters, nor gives exclusions.

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