google_ads_opportunity_finder

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'finds' and 'combines multiple analyses,' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects. It adds some context beyond no annotations but is not highly transparent.

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 bullet points and an example. It is concise without unnecessary information, though the example could be integrated into the parameter descriptions. Overall efficient and clear.

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's complexity and the many sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, parameter details, and return type. The output schema exists but is not described here; the mention of 'prioritized recommendations' gives a high-level understanding. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain parameters. It includes an Args section explaining customer_id (10 digits, no hyphens) and opportunity_type with allowed values (ALL, BUDGET, WASTE, PERFORMANCE), adding significant meaning beyond the schema. The default for opportunity_type is not mentioned, but the schema shows it.

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 finds optimization opportunities across the Google Ads account, listing specific categories (budget, waste, performance, quick wins). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_wasted_spend_analysis or google_ads_get_optimization_score.

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 what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like google_ads_budget_recommendations or google_ads_get_recommendations. Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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