google_ads_auction_insights_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly declares 'Read-only,' explains the API v23 removal of competitor-level auction insight, and details the exact return structure, value ranges (percentages or None), and threshold logic. This goes far beyond minimal disclosure.

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?

Three sentences deliver dense, relevant information: purpose, return shape, thresholds, read-only status, API limitation, and sibling alternative. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides a detailed return skeleton and threshold rules. It covers read-only behavior, API version context, and alternative tools. It omits error handling or edge cases (e.g., all metrics null), but for a read-only analysis tool this is acceptable and the overall context is thorough.

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 provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults, examples, and fallback behavior. The description adds context about thresholds and return formats but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 opens with a specific verb-object pair: 'Interpret a campaign's impression-share metrics and surface human-readable insights about competitive position.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling google_ads_auction_insights_get by contrasting raw metrics vs. insights.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'For the raw metrics without insights use google_ads_auction_insights_get.' Also notes that full competitor data is only available in the Google Ads UI, and provides concrete threshold conditions (IS < 50/70%, rank-lost > 20%, etc.) that trigger insights, guiding appropriate use.

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