google_ads_get_bid_simulator

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool projects impressions, clicks, cost, and conversions using historical data, and notes the 7-day requirement. It does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or permissions.

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 a purpose paragraph, Args/Returns/Example sections, and no extraneous text. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

Considering the output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and usage context. It lacks some behavioral details but is sufficient for a complex tool.

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 adds significant value by explaining each parameter: customer_id (no hyphens), campaign_id (campaign-level), criterion_id (optional keyword-level). This clarifies usage beyond the schema's minimal titles.

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 gets bid simulation data showing potential performance at different bid levels. It distinguishes from siblings like google_ads_get_bid_recommendations by focusing on historical projections, but does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 explains that bid simulators use historical data and require at least 7 days of data, implying when to use. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or compare with other tools like keyword forecast.

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