google_ads_get_landing_pages

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a read-only fetch and warns that quality metrics are returned only when supported, which is useful. However, it does not describe auth requirements, pagINATION, rate limits, or what happens when certain metrics are not supported. That leaves meaningful gaps.

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 gives the resource, action, and output dimensions with no filler. The 'when supported' caveat is placed at the end, and every clause earns its place. This is appropriately sized for a moderately complex tool.

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 description is enough to make a basic call: it names the core return categories and hints at data availability. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, it does not clarify exact metric names, pagination behavior, how 'unsupported' metrics surface, or how the campaignId filter affects results. The gaps are not fatal but are noticeable for an agent needing robust invocation.

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 80%, which meets the high-coverage baseline, so the description does not need to compensate much. The schema already explains customerId, start/endDate, and campaignId, and the description adds no per-param semantics; 'limit' is left to the schema's default/maximum without a description. The final-URL and context phrasing describes output fields, not parameters.

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?

Description names a specific resource (landing_page_view), a specific action (Fetch), and the output scope (final URL, campaign/ad group context, traffic, conversion, quality metrics). This clearly separates it from sibling getters like google_ads_get_campaigns or google_ads_get_keyword_performance. It does not explicitly name siblings or scope, so it stops short of a top score.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the resource and metric terms suggest when it applies, but there is no direct statement of when to use it over alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. 'When supported' is a capability caveat, not a routing instruction. An agent would have to infer its niche among a large list of get_* tools.

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