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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only.' sentence is largely redundant. The genuinely additive content is that verdicts are judged against the account's own conversion volume rather than fixed thresholds, which explains why results vary by account. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how the capped finding list behaves, despite a max_findings parameter.

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 core is one front-loaded sentence that packs the finding categories efficiently, followed by a short safety note. The trailing 'Tools revision: d80f65c0.' is operational noise that costs space without helping an agent decide or invoke.

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?

Return values are covered by an output schema and the safety profile is covered by annotations, so the remaining burden is parameter guidance and sibling routing, both of which are missing. For a five-parameter audit tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves an agent guessing at days, detail, and max_findings semantics.

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% across five parameters, and the description mentions none of them: not the lookback window (days), the summary/full depth switch (detail), the render mode, or how max_findings truncates output. The only implicit hint is that conversion volume over time matters, which loosely gestures at a lookback window but defines nothing.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('bid strategies') and enumerates the finding categories: manual bidding with enough data, unrealistic CPA/ROAS targets, stuck learning, and low-volume campaigns needing a portfolio. That scope makes it distinguishable from broad siblings such as full_audit or account_health_score, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the enumerated checks: an agent can infer it should call this when investigating bidding-strategy problems. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that the account must have conversion tracking), and no guidance on when the audit is not appropriate.

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