google_ads_get_bidding_strategy_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read operation (get performance) and notes the return format (markdown). However, it lacks details on data freshness, specific metrics returned beyond examples, or any authentication requirements, offering only adequate transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief elaboration, then a clear list of arguments, return type, and an example. Every sentence adds value without 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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, output format (markdown), and example metrics. It could mention that performance is aggregated across all campaigns (already implied) but is otherwise complete for a read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies customer_id format (without hyphens), identifies bidding_strategy_id as a strategy ID, and provides valid date_range values (TODAY, YESTERDAY, etc.) with an example. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 retrieves performance metrics for a portfolio bidding strategy, specifying it shows aggregate performance across all campaigns using the strategy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_get_bidding_strategy_details (which would get strategy details) and google_ads_campaign_performance (which is per-campaign).

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 it shows aggregate performance across campaigns using the strategy, implying use when an overview is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like google_ads_campaign_performance for per-campaign data, leaving guidance incomplete.

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