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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that only set-up accounts are listed, explains the hidden accounts count and the fix path, and specifies the returned customer ID format. It does not describe pagination behavior for limit/cursor, which is a remaining gap.

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 front-loaded with the skill instruction and core purpose, and most sentences earn their place by adding routing or setup context. It is dense and somewhat long, but the length is largely justified by the multi-platform resolution rules.

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?

The description explains the return fields, setup filtering, hidden accounts, and sibling-tool routing, which is substantial for a tool with no output schema. It is not fully complete because the pagination inputs are unexplained.

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 never mentions the two input parameters, limit and cursor. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, so the agent gets no semantic guidance on those inputs.

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: 'List the Google Ads accounts connected in this workspace.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the Meta sibling by directing Meta account listing to adsap_list_ad_accounts.

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 usage guidance: use it to pick an account, ask the user if several, load the adsap-ads skill first if available, and call it alongside adsap_list_ad_accounts when the platform is unspecified. It also names the alternative for Meta accounts.

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