google_ads_rsa_assets_audit

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It explicitly states 'Read-only; does not modify any assets' and explains the logic behind HIGH and LOW priority recommendations. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but sufficiently covers core 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 well-structured, starting with purpose and output, then detailing return fields, priority logic, and a read-only note. It is concise but informative, with no redundant sentences.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return structure and recommendation logic. It covers inputs adequately and mentions the sibling tool. It could include more on error cases but is generally complete for the tool's purpose.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage advice for the period parameter (e.g., shorter window for recent changes, longer for trends) and explaining fallback for customer_id. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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's purpose: auditing RSA assets against Google's guidance and emitting recommendations. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'google_ads_rsa_assets_analyze' by explicitly noting that the sibling provides raw per-asset data.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: for an audit that outputs recommendations. It also explicitly tells when to use the sibling tool for raw breakdowns, effectively setting boundaries. However, it does not cover broader usage scenarios or compare with other related tools like performance reports.

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