search_advertiser

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (advertiser ID, name, verification status, total ad count), which is not present in annotations or schema. No contradictions.

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, with a clear opening sentence followed by three bullet points that are front-loaded and easy to scan. 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields. Parameters are fully documented in schema, sibling tools provide context, and annotations declare safety traits. No apparent gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'region' parameters. The description adds examples ('nike.com', 'Nike') but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for an advertiser by domain or brand name on Google Ads Transparency Center, and lists specific use cases (finding competitor ID, brand analysis, discovering related advertisers). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_advertiser_profile and get_advertiser_ads by focusing on search/discovery rather than details or comparison.

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 explicit usage scenarios ('Use this tool to:') with three bullet points, guiding when to use it (e.g., find competitor ID, search brands). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.

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