google_ads_change_events

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds valuable behavior details: maximum 30-day lookback, returned fields, resource/client type enums, and the 100,000 row cap. It does not mention pagination or rate limiting, but the disclosed constraints go well beyond the annotations.

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: a one-line purpose, then return fields, then parameter definitions. Each section is labelled and every sentence carries useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, constraints, return fields, and parameter semantics comprehensively. Given the output schema exists and the tool is read-only, nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: customer_id format, days_back range, resource_types as an optional enum filter, and limit with default and cap. This is exactly the semantic context the agent needs beyond raw schema types.

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 identifies the tool as an audit trail ('who changed what') with a specific 30-day scope and enumerates return fields. It is distinct in meaning from siblings like google_ads_change_status, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from related tools.

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 clearly implies use when an audit trail of changes is needed and specifies limits such as the 30-day max window and optional resource_types filtering. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing guidance.

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