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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation, specifies the output shape, and explains that the returned customer ID should be reused as ad_account_id in downstream tools. It does not cover pagination or empty/error behavior, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: action+scope, return fields, selection behavior, Meta alternative, and the critical platform rule. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, even though the PLATFORM RULE section is typographically emphatic.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description supplies most of the contract: output fields, downstream ID reuse, user interaction rule, and cross-platform routing. It falls just short of complete because it omits limit/cursor pagination semantics and what to do when zero accounts are returned, but for typical invocation it is sufficient.

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 needed to explain limit and cursor. It does not mention either parameter, leaving an agent to infer limit only from numeric bounds/default and cursor as an opaque string. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the raw schema already shows.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'List Google Ads accounts linked in this workspace' and details the returned fields (10-digit customer ID, name, currency, timezone, status). It clearly distinguishes itself from adsap_list_ad_accounts for Meta accounts, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (to pick a Google Ads account, ask the user if several), names the alternative for Meta accounts (adsap_list_ad_accounts), and provides a platform rule to call it alongside the Meta tool when no platform is named. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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