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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the returned data shape, the 30-day retention limit, propagation lag, and ID format. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or auth requirements, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'change history' and 'Returns'.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose before adding qualification details. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact: return fields, retention window, lag, and ID format, with no 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?

For a read-oriented tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return values, retention limits, latency, and required ID format. Pagination or response envelope details are not mentioned, but that is a minor gap given the moderate complexity.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mainly reinforces the ad_account_id bare-ID constraint and the 30-day cap rather than adding new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns Google Ads account change history: who changed what, when, with editor email, surface, operation, and changed fields. The Google Ads scoping and 10-digit customer ID clearly distinguish it from the sibling adsap_get_account_activities.

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?

Clearly frames the tool for recent account edits and explicitly warns that history is only retained for 30 days, directing older lookups to the Google Ads UI. It also flags the ~3-minute lag. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the Google-specific context is enough.

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