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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the return value (a private link), the PDF-save option, and that branding comes from Go Shift › Client reports configuration rather than from parameters. Gaps remain around duplicate reports and whether prior links expire, but the mutation profile is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable, then the branding source, then the return value and trigger. The settings-path reference ('Go Shift › Client reports') is slightly heavy but earns its place by telling the agent where branding originates.

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 seven optional parameters, no required inputs and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial return-value statement (private link) and the usage trigger that the schema cannot. Minor omissions — default report sections, language behaviour mentioned only in the notes param — are small for a tool this straightforward.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that 'folder' and 'account' select Google Ads, Meta and TikTok entities respectively, which the schema does not state. It does not add detail on date_range vs start_date/end_date precedence, leaving that to the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Build a shareable performance report for a client') and immediately scopes the covered platforms (Google Ads, Meta, TikTok) plus the two selectable units (client folder or single account). Unlike sibling analytics tools such as google_ads_performance or meta_performance, an agent can tell this produces a deliverable artifact rather than raw metrics.

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 final sentence gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks for a report to send to a client.' That cleanly separates it from the raw-metrics siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. client_brief) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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