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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining the report contents and clarifying that it merely proposes a replacement ad rather than applying changes.

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 main reporting capability. The final revision line and the repeated 'Read-only' note add little for tool selection, but the core content is efficiently structured.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description does not need to explain return formatting. However, for a six-parameter report tool with zero schema descriptions, it omits how days, detail, render, and max_findings affect the report, leaving some operational gaps.

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 must compensate for all six parameters. It only explains campaign_id as digits that narrows to one campaign; days, detail, render, customer_id, and max_findings are left to the schema titles/defaults without added semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: reporting responsive-search-ad headlines and descriptions with Google labels, ad strength, counts, pinning, and recency. It is clearly distinguishable from creation and general audit siblings because it focuses on RSA asset-level reporting and replacement proposal.

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 makes the reporting use case clear and notes that campaign_id narrows scope, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as full_audit, quality_score_breakdown, list_recommendations, or create_responsive_search_ad. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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