get_google_ads

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, so the description needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It does add useful details: the tool filters by topic and region, returns 'currently running ads' (implying real-time data), and each ad includes an imageUrl that can be passed to analyze_ad_image. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior (cursor) or limits, and it doesn't mention any potential caveats like missing advertisers or incomplete data from the external source.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and cross-reference to a sibling tool. It is front-loaded with a clear verb and resource, and contains no fluff. This is a model of efficient, structured tool description.

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?

With 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no required params, the description covers the core scope well: what it retrieves, how to identify the company, and how to filter. It references imageUrl from details, which hints at the return shape. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or result limits, but the presence of cursor and limit parameters and the lack of an output schema make that less critical. The description is complete enough for typical invocation, though a brief note about pagination would improve it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains domain and advertiser_id ('using their domain (e.g., 'nike.com') or advertiser ID'), and it explains topic and region ('filter by topic (including political ads) and region'). However, it does not mention limit or cursor, which have no schema descriptions. Given that 4 of 6 parameters are semantically explained, it provides substantial value 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: 'Retrieve currently running ads for a company from Google Ads Transparency Center.' This specifies the verb (retrieve), resource (ads), and scope (currently running ads for a company), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_ad_image and get_google_ad_details. The example 'e.g., 'nike.com'' further clarifies the intended input.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to get ads for a company using their domain ... or advertiser ID.' It also provides a clear directive for an alternative tool: 'For complete analysis of visual elements ... you MUST also use analyze_ad_image on the imageUrl from each ad's details.' This gives the agent explicit guidance on complementary usage and when to invoke a different tool.

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