google_ads_campaign_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output as a comparative analysis with rankings and insights and lists metrics. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but it is clear it is a read-only analysis tool.

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 well-structured with sections (overview, args, returns, example, metrics, use cases) and is front-loaded with the main purpose. It is slightly repetitive (first line restates title) but overall efficient for the amount of detail.

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 no annotations, 4 parameters (2 required), and an output schema, the description covers usage constraints (2-10 campaigns), metrics, and provides an example. It does not need to detail the output structure since an output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section, including examples and defaults. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title, such as the format of campaign_ids and the default for date_range.

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 compares performance across multiple campaigns side-by-side, lists specific metrics, and distinguishes from siblings like google_ads_campaign_performance (single campaign) and google_ads_compare_ad_performance (ads).

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 clear use cases such as identifying top performers, optimizing budget, and finding underperformers. It also notes the constraint of comparing 2-10 campaigns. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives.

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