ghl_ad_google_reporting_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds endpoint details and OAuth scopes but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations, so score is moderate.

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 very concise at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It includes necessary technical details (endpoint, OAuth scopes) without verbosity. However, the technical specifics may not always be essential for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 read-only reporting tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and authorization. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this specific tool versus other reporting tools (e.g., campaign-level, Facebook, LinkedIn), and does not explain the return value structure. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter is already documented in the schema (e.g., type, fields, dates, locationId). The tool description does not add any extra meaning or clarify parameter relationships or dependencies, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not improve it.

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 it retrieves aggregated Google Ads reporting metrics for a location. It is specific about the resource (Google Ads reporting) and the action (get), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_ad_google_reporting_list or ghl_ad_google_campaign_reporting_get, which could be confused for similar operations.

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 does not mention context like 'use for aggregate metrics across campaigns' or distinguish from campaign-level reporting. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use indications, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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