google_ads_rsa_assets_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; does not modify any assets,' which is essential for an agent to know. It also discloses decision thresholds (e.g., 'HIGH priorities fire when headlines < 8 or descriptions < 3') and the 'wait_for_data' condition, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 earns its place. The return object is fully enumerated, which is necessary because there is no output schema. The opening sentence states purpose, then thresholds, read-only status, and alternative tool all follow in a logical, compact structure.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the full return schema, trigger thresholds, read-only behavior, and differentiates itself from the closest sibling. An agent has everything needed 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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed semantics for each input parameter (period guidance, campaign_id example, customer_id fallback). The description itself adds no further parameter-specific information, so baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('Responsive Search Ad assets'), and clearly states the output ('emit replacement recommendations'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool google_ads_rsa_assets_analyze by explicitly redirecting users who need the raw per-asset breakdown.

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 gives an explicit alternative: 'For the raw per-asset performance breakdown use google_ads_rsa_assets_analyze.' It also specifies when HIGH and LOW priorities fire, providing concrete guidance on when the tool's output is actionable vs. when to wait for more data.

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