google_ads_rsa_assets_analyze

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and describes the output structure, sorting, and labels. However, it does not mention error handling or prerequisites like campaign status.

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 (4-5 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states action, then output format, then usage guidance. No redundant information.

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?

Description covers purpose, output schema in detail (including performance labels, derived fields, sorting), read-only nature, and sibling alternatives. It also instructs how to obtain campaign_id. Complete for understanding the tool's use.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema: clarifies customer_id fallback and provides contextual advice for period (e.g., use shorter window for recent changes).

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 splits RSA asset performance into headlines and descriptions, with specific verb 'Split'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming google_ads_rsa_assets_audit and google_ads_ad_performance_compare.

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 versus alternatives ('For an audit version... use google_ads_rsa_assets_audit; for ad-level A/B use google_ads_ad_performance_compare'). Also provides guidance for the period parameter ('Use a shorter window when diagnosing recent changes; use LAST_90_DAYS for trend baselines').

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