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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only *open* (unresolved) recommendations are returned and that resource_name is the handle for apply/dismiss, which is genuinely useful chaining context, though return-shape detail is largely redundant against the existing output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences: purpose and returned fields first, parameter note second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, follow-up chaining, and the only parameter's meaning. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter, and it does: workspace is the customer workspace slug, optional when the account has only one workspace. That adds format and optionality semantics the bare string|null schema lacks.

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 resource and scope: open Google Ads recommendations for the account, and names the fields surfaced (type, affected campaign, resource_name). An agent can distinguish this from ads_list_campaigns or ads_change_history without opening the 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?

The parenthetical ties the output to the follow-up tools ads_apply_recommendation and ads_dismiss_recommendation, making this the discovery step in that workflow. It does not state explicit exclusions, but no sibling competes for the same listing job.

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