google_ads_rsa_assets_analyze

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

The description declares the tool as read-only, details the return structure including performance labels and sorting by impressions descending, and mentions the insights string. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so adequately, though it omits potential access requirements or rate limits.

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 moderately long but efficiently structured: action, return shape with examples, read-only declaration, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly trimmed, but no 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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return object shape, sorts, and possible values. It also provides usage context for periods and distinguishes from audit/compare tools. No apparent gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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), but the description adds extra context: for period it suggests appropriate windows ('use a shorter window for recent changes'), for campaign_id it directs to obtain via google_ads_campaigns_list, and for customer_id it explains fallback behavior. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 Responsive Search Ad asset performance into headlines and descriptions', specifies the return shape with examples, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (google_ads_rsa_assets_audit and google_ads_ad_performance_compare) by name and purpose.

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?

It provides explicit context on when to use this tool (analyzing RSA asset performance) and names alternatives for audit (google_ads_rsa_assets_audit) and ad-level A/B (google_ads_ad_performance_compare). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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