get_account_hierarchy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior via the verb 'List' without confirming it. It does not mention Google Ads authentication/scopes, pagination, depth limits on nesting, or error cases — significant gaps for an API-backed tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence and the parameter note is compact. The 'Args:' docstring-style formatting is slightly unusual for an MCP definition but adds no real bloat.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, coverage is mostly adequate: purpose and the input format are covered, and return values can live in the output schema. Still, with no annotations, the missing authentication and read-only confirmation leave the picture incomplete for an external API call.

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, and it does: 'The manager account's customer ID (10 digits, dashes optional)' adds format, length, and meaning that the bare string schema lacks. Could go further (e.g., validation behavior), but this is strong compensating detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the accounts under a Google Ads manager (MCC) account', and adds a useful detail ('including nesting level'). It conceptually separates from the sibling list_accessible_customers, but does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_accessible_customers or run_gaql. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where a sibling is preferable, so the agent must infer the choice on its own.

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