google_ads_suggest_geo_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key safety behavior, and details what the operation returns: criterion IDs, canonical names, target types, status, parents, locale, and approximate reach. It does not cover failure or partial-resolution behavior, but the core behavioral profile is clearly disclosed.

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 three short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded before the return details. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler text. It is concise while still conveying both purpose and output expectations.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it states the operation, the read-only nature, and the return fields. However, it leaves countryCode unexplained, does not clarify the exact return structure, and says nothing about failure behavior or how the two input arrays interact. An agent could call it correctly but would lack full context for all inputs.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It covers geoTargetIds and locationNames by describing them as 'location names or geo target IDs' and notes the 25-item limit, but it does not explain countryCode at all. Locale is mentioned only as a returned field, not as an input parameter controlling language, which could mislead an agent. Parameter semantics are only partially compensated.

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 states a specific action, 'Resolve', and a specific resource, 'location names or geo target IDs to Google Ads geoTargetConstants', making the tool's job unmistakable. It also lists concrete return fields, which distinguishes it from the many read-only reporting siblings. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 context: when an agent needs to translate location names or geo target IDs into Google Ads geo target constants. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, and no sibling alternative is named. The uniqueness among siblings makes this a mild gap rather than a serious one.

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