Google Ads recommendations

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the output structure (type, campaign/ad group, current and projected metrics, estimated improvement) and notes the insight about flagging budget-increase recommendations. This adds behavioral context about what the tool returns and how it interprets recommendations.

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 succinct and well-structured: a brief intro, return details, parameter notes, and insight context. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and does not repeat schema 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output contents, parameter purpose (mostly), and a behavioral nuance (flagging self-serving recommendations). It is complete for a read-only tool, although it does not mention pagination or error handling, which are not critical given the context.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains two of the three parameters: recommendation_types (optional filter with examples) and campaign_id (scope to a single campaign), but does not mention customer_id. It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but is incomplete for one parameter.

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 retrieves Google Ads recommendations with estimated impact, and specifies the resource (auto-generated recommendations). The verb 'retrieve' and resource are explicit, distinguishing it from other get_* tools by the unique resource and output type.

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 some context on when to use the tool (e.g., to review recommendations and identify high-impact or self-serving budget-increase ones), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for not using it. The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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