google_ads_rsa_assets_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly reveals output structure, sorting ('Rows sorted by impressions descending'), and explicitly states it is read-only. This exceeds typical transparency by documenting return shapes and label semantics.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential information: purpose, output structure, sorting, read-only flag, and alternative tools. It avoids redundant phrasing and earns its length by providing a full return specification in the absence of an output schema.

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 tool with no output schema and only 3 parameters, the description fully specifies the return shape, parameter roles, performance labels, and cites sibling tools. It gives enough context to make the tool independently usable without external documentation.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for campaign scope but does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema. It correctly relies on schema for period and customer_id details.

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 'Split Responsive Search Ad asset performance within a Google Ads campaign into headlines and descriptions,' clearly stating the specific action and resource. It explicitly names the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings by mentioning related tools for audit and ad-level 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?

Provides explicit alternatives: 'For an audit version with replacement recommendations use google_ads_rsa_assets_audit; for ad-level A/B use google_ads_ad_performance_compare.' Also states 'Read-only,' signaling when it's safe to use without mutation side effects.

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