direct_get_bids

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the one-of selector requirement and the non-obvious unit convention ('Monetary values are micros (×1e6)'). It does not contradict 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?

Compact and front-loaded: the constraint and unit convention come early with no filler. The 'Bids.get:' prefix is slightly API-jargon but harmless.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 6-param tool with 0% schema coverage the description omits pagination (limit/offset) and the include_auction toggle, and offers no sibling differentiation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents only 3 of 6 params (the three id arrays and their one-of rule). The limit, offset, and include_auction parameters are left entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Bids.get: current Bid/ContextBid plus optional search auction fields for keywords'), which tells an agent it retrieves bid data. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'direct_get_keyword_bids', which sounds like it covers a similar area.

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?

It provides one genuine usage constraint ('One of campaign_ids, ad_group_ids, keyword_ids required') and notes read-only, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like direct_get_keyword_bids or direct_get_bid_modifiers.

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