get_workflow_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a step-by-step guide and lists the sequence of steps. It does not mention side effects, but for an informational guide with zero parameters, the behavior is fully transparent. It could add a note that it performs no data modifications, but the nature of the tool makes this implicit.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences. It front-loads the purpose ('Return the recommended workflow') and then provides the key steps and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the workflow steps, and when to use it. The output schema likely details the structure of the guide, so no further return-value description is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Therefore, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no param-specific details, which is acceptable.

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 returns a recommended workflow for using Google Ads MCP tools, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('recommended workflow'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-guide rather than a data operation, and explicitly outlines the workflow steps.

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 a clear usage context: 'Good first call when starting a new analysis session.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is specific enough for a meta-tool that is clearly distinct from the operational siblings.

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