ads_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that GAQL has no statement other than SELECT and therefore the operation cannot change anything, establishing it as read-only. It does not mention rate limits, query timeouts, or result-size limits, but the core safety behavior is transparently 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?

Two short sentences deliver the purpose, the usage context, and the read-only guarantee with no filler. The information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

Given a single parameter, an output schema, and the explicit read-only guarantee, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It could name a few shaped-read siblings to make the fallback role more concrete, but the generic reference is sufficient for routing.

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%, so the schema already documents the single query parameter as a GAQL SELECT statement. The description reinforces the GAQL semantics and the read-only property, but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('Google Ads account'), and the exact mechanism ('arbitrary GAQL SELECT'). It also positions the tool as the fallback for questions the shaped reads do not cover, clearly distinguishing it from the many ads_* sibling reads.

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 phrase 'for a question the shaped reads do not cover' gives clear guidance on when to use this tool as the general-purpose fallback versus the more targeted shaped reads. It does not name specific siblings or give explicit negative examples, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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