Search Google ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it deliberately fetches the low-credit BASIC variant and explains the detailed variant is not exposed, plus the exact return JSON shape. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste. Every clause adds new information: purpose, usage, credit cost, return format, and an alternative. The key differentiator (known brand vs open-ended) is front-loaded, and the cost/return specifics are packed efficiently.

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 read-only lookup with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the return format, the intended use case, the alternative for open-ended research, and the cost trade-off. With annotations covering security, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% — every parameter has a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add new meaning beyond echoing domain vs advertiserId, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it is a 'Structured Google Ads Transparency pull for ONE advertiser' with specific identifiers, and explicitly contrasts with research_ads. This differentiates it from sibling ad-search tools and tells the agent exactly what resource it acts on and the scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'use when you know the brand; use research_ads for open-ended research.' Also explains it fetches the cheap BASIC listing, implying when cost matters. This is unambiguous when-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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