google_ads_get_pmax_asset_diagnostics

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. It also hints at conditional behavior with 'optional' metrics and 'when available' for top combinations, but it does not explain any practical limitations, such as data availability windows, API cost implications, or what happens when optional metrics are omitted.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned data categories in a scannable way. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or redundant details.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a useful but incomplete picture. It names the output categories, which is essential, but it does not clarify how 'optional' metrics are toggled via parameters, what action items and status reasons look like, or what the default behavior is when filters and dates are omitted. The schema fills some gaps, but the overall context is only minimally sufficient.

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 75%, so most parameters already carry meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds little parameter-specific value, only noting that performance metrics and top combinations are optional, which is already reflected in the schema. Parameters like limit and statusFilter lack descriptions in the schema, and the description does not compensate for those gaps.

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 opens with 'Read-only Performance Max asset group diagnostics,' which names a specific resource and operation, then enumerates the exact categories of data returned: ad strength, asset coverage action items, primary status reasons, optional performance metrics, and optional top asset combinations. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like google_ads_get_pmax_assets, which is about asset inventory rather than diagnostic evaluation.

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 the tool is for PMax asset group diagnostics, and the read-only qualifier suggests it is safe for investigation workflows. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related sibling tools such as google_ads_get_pmax_assets or google_ads_run_gaql, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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