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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by disclosing cache-first behavior with a 1-hour auto-refresh and listing the returned fields. It could mention error conditions or pagination behavior, but it provides meaningful context for a read-only listing tool.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and cache behavior, then adds return fields, parameter source, and the Meta alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is adequate for a basic call: it explains the core purpose, cache behavior, return fields, and ad_account_id source. However, with no output schema and five parameters, it omits pagination mechanics, status_filter meaning, and any API-budget or error context. It is not fully complete for sophisticated use.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It enriches ad_account_id by pointing to the sibling tool, but it does not explain limit, cursor, or status_filter semantics. Pagination and filtering behavior are left entirely to the schema's bare names.

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 and resource: 'List Google Ads campaigns in a Google Ads account.' It also names the returned fields and explicitly differentiates itself from the Meta tool adsap_list_campaigns, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

The description explicitly says 'For Meta campaigns use adsap_list_campaigns instead,' and tells the agent that ad_account_id comes from adsap_google_list_ad_accounts. It also explains the cache-first behavior, which helps the agent decide when the call will hit Google's API.

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