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 the return semantics beyond a bare list: the bare 10-digit customer ID and its downstream use as ad_account_id for adsap_google_list_campaigns and adsap_google_get_insights, plus name, currency, timezone, and status. It does not explicitly mention pagination behavior via the limit/cursor params or the empty-result case, which keeps it a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences with the core action front-loaded before return format and routing guidance. The PLATFORM RULE sentence is long but carries critical call-pattern behavior, and every sentence earns its place — there is no fluff.

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 low-complexity list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned and in what format, how to use the result as an ad_account_id for two named downstream tools, how to handle multiple accounts, and the cross-platform call rule. Omissions like pagination details and error behavior are minor at this 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 0% and the description does not explain limit or cursor. However, both are standard pagination controls whose semantics are already well-constrained by the schema itself (default 20, max 100, min 1; cursor as an opaque string token), so the gap is minor. The description's value lies in output usage rather than parameter explanation.

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 action, resource, and scope: 'List the Google Ads accounts connected in this workspace.' Explicitly differentiates from the Meta-side sibling adsap_list_ad_accounts, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it to pick a Google Ads account and ask the user if several are returned. It names the alternative for Meta accounts and adds a PLATFORM RULE that prescribes calling this tool ALONGSIDE adsap_list_ad_accounts when no platform is named — actionable routing with nothing left to inference.

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