google_ads_bid_adjustments_get

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only' and details the return structure, including the exact shape and quirks like device_type being 'UNKNOWN(<n>)' for non-DEVICE rows. This goes beyond basic safety to explain behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact return type specification and two short alternative pointers. Every sentence contributes useful information 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the returned objects, including enum values and edge cases. It covers alternatives, read-only nature, and scope, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters having detailed descriptions (e.g., campaign_id format and fallback behavior for customer_id). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level insight, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List every campaign_criterion row that has a non-null bid_modifier on a Google Ads campaign.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives for device-summary and location-only views.

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?

Explicit 'when to use' guidance is provided: 'For the device-summary view... use google_ads_device_targeting_get. For location-only use google_ads_location_targeting_list.' This gives clear exclusions and alternatives.

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