Google Ads MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Ad Controls (e.g., enable video creation)' which hints at some configuration options, but doesn't describe what happens when the ad is created, whether it's immediately active, what permissions are required, or what the expected response format is. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and no complex behavioral nuances to explain. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context about when to use this tool.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the response contains, or any error conditions. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameter understanding, but behavioral aspects remain underspecified given this is a write operation in an advertising context.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'Ad Controls (e.g., enable video creation)' which loosely maps to the 'enable_video_creation' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('Responsive Display Ad'), and specifies the type of ad being created. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on responsive display ads rather than campaigns, conversions, or reports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential ad creation tools that might exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing ad group), when responsive display ads are appropriate, or what alternatives might exist among the sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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