google_ads_ads_policy_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares the tool is 'Read-only' and describes the return structure in detail (approval_status, policy_topic_entries, etc.). While it doesn't cover rate limits or permissions, the read-only nature and output schema are well explained, adding value beyond the schema.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence covers the functionality and output, while the second provides usage context. No redundant information is present, and critical details are front-loaded.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. The output fields are listed, and the usage context is provided, making the description self-contained for agent decision-making.

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%, so the input schema already describes all three parameters (customer_id, ad_group_id, ad_id) with clear descriptions. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'Fetches' and the resource 'Google Ads policy review result for a single ad'. It enumerates the specific output fields (approval_status, policy_topic_entries, evidence, appeal eligibility flag), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it should be called after google_ads_ads_list for non-approved ads.

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 explicitly provides a usage context: 'Call this after google_ads_ads_list surfaces a non-APPROVED ad to understand the specific disapproval reasons.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and the prerequisite step, which is excellent guidance.

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