google_ads_get_simulations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, describes the return content (simulation metadata and projected point lists), and notes a metadata fallback. It stops short of covering pagination or output shape, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loads the read-only planning/forecast purpose, and includes the fallback behavior without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what is returned and when a fallback occurs. The schema covers most parameters in detail, and the description adds the missing high-level return behavior, making the tool reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond naming the resource levels, which map to the 'level' enum. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a read-only planning/forecast query for simulations, and specifies the three supported resource levels: campaign, ad group, and portfolio bidding. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that handle accounts, keywords, or GAQL queries.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need simulation metadata, forecasts, or projected point lists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the simulation-specific scope is strong enough to guide selection.

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