validate_pmax_assets

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the operation is offline, requires no credentials, and is text-only, implying a non-mutating read-only check. It does not describe return behavior, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds functional information about scope, usage timing, or parameter constraints. No fluff or repetition.

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 low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything necessary: purpose, usage context, parameter constraints, scope boundaries, and sibling differentiation. It leaves nothing critical unexplained.

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 0%, so the description compensates powerfully by specifying required counts and character limits for headlines, long_headlines, descriptions, and business_name. It omits any explanation of final_url, but that parameter is optional and self-explanatory.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check Performance Max TEXT assets against Google's limits — offline.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly stating that image validation is handled by create_performance_max_campaign, not here.

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 explicit timing guidance ('Use this while drafting copy, before creating anything') and clarifies what it does not cover, naming the alternative tool for image validation. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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