get_policy_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns disapproved ads and keywords and attributes them to editorial review failures, which adds context beyond the bare function. However, it does not mention side effects (none expected), return format, or any edge cases. The description is not misleading but is sparse.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core information (what it returns and for which entity). No wasted words or redundant detail. It is appropriately brief for a simple 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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for a basic retrieval tool. It states what is returned (ads and keywords) and why (editorial failures), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary purpose. However, it omits details about the return structure, pagination, or error handling, though these are less critical given the simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter. The phrase 'in an ad group' clarifies that the single ad_group_id parameter refers to the ad group whose issues are retrieved, adding meaningful scope. Yet it does not explicitly state that ad_group_id is required or provide details on its expected value, leaving the connection implicit.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (policy issues) with scope (in an ad group) and clarifies it returns disapproved ads and keywords due to editorial review failures. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_negative_keywords or get_keyword_performance, as no other tool focuses on policy issues.

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 implies usage (when you need policy issues for an ad group) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement.

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