google_ads_run_gaql

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool executes a raw query and gives a SELECT example, but it does not disclose whether only read-only queries are allowed, how results are returned, what happens on invalid queries, or any rate limits or pagination behavior. These are significant unknowns for a raw-execution tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides an illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place, and the example is compact enough to be immediately useful without bloating the description.

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?

This is a high-flexibility raw query tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits key contextual details: return format, whether the tool is read-only, how to handle errors, and any pagination or duration limits. The example hints at capabilities but does not fully equip an agent to safely and effectively invoke the tool for arbitrary GAQL queries.

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 100% for both parameters, and the schema descriptions already convey basic semantics and the customer ID format. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a realistic GAQL example with SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE ... DURING ... ORDER BY ... LIMIT, which clarifies the expected query structure and demonstrates the granularity of fields available.

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 states the tool executes a raw GAQL query and offers 'full flexibility for any reporting need,' which specifies a distinct resource (GAQL). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like google_ads_run_readonly_rpc or google_ads_validate_query, so it misses the 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?

The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. While 'Full flexibility for any reporting need' implies broad use, it does not tell an agent when to prefer this over the many sibling reporting tools or when to avoid it, leaving selection to inference.

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