ads_ads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'read-only', making clear it has no mutation effects. It also lists the types of data returned, but does not explain what happens if no ad data exists, whether authentication is required, or any pagination limits. This is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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 action and read-only nature, then lists the specific fields returned. There is no wasted wording, and it conveys the core purpose succinctly.

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 a simple one-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what data the tool retrieves and its read-only nature. It could mention the default date range or clarify that it returns a list of ads, but these are minor gaps given the schema covers the parameter details and the output schema handles return structure.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'days' parameter with a clear description of its purpose and constraints. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies without any additional semantic value added.

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 verb ('Read'), the resource ('Google Ads ads'), and the specific data points ('ad strength, policy approval status, serving status and metrics'). It explicitly marks the operation as read-only and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ads_campaigns and ads_keywords by focusing on the ad level with these specific attributes.

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 that this tool is for retrieving ad-level details with the listed fields, which differentiates it from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over others or provide exclusions, though the specific fields give clear context for its intended use.

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