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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: check counts, health-scoring, findings ordering by failure/severity/status, advice-only trailing items, some results carrying a fixing call, and the get_org_context prerequisite.

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 compact and front-loads the audit scope, but it is extremely telegraphic and some phrases are cryptic, such as 'not impact' and 'advice-only last per status.' It avoids waste but sacrifices readability.

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 complex 7-parameter audit tool, it covers the broad purpose, depth modes, sections, result ordering, and prerequisite context well. Still, with 0% schema description coverage, missing render and max_findings explanations leave notable gaps for correct invocation.

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 carries the full burden. It clarifies depth (deep default, quick scores three), detail full, days, and sections via named checks, but it does not explain render enum values, max_findings, or customer_id.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: auditing a Google Ads account across conversion tracking, wasted spend, structure, keywords, ads, and settings. It differentiates deep vs quick modes and names check IDs, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling audit tools such as account_health_score or conversion_setup_audit.

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 provides some usage context by saying deep is the default with 74 checks and quick scores three month-to-date, and it mentions using named checks with their sections and detail full. However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives, so an agent must infer when to choose this over narrower audit siblings.

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