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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that — it only retrieves accounts, action specs, action lists, and brand guidelines. It adds real context about what each call returns (workspace_id, brand_id, ad_account_id, available_actions, exact request bodies) and flags the mandatory prerequisite, though it says nothing about rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Numbered steps with the mandatory path first and optional branches after — well front-loaded and scannable. Minor redundancy in restating that available_actions is 'already included in accounts response' and the placeholder 'xxxxxx' examples, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 dispatcher tool with an output schema present, the description covers the decision tree an agent needs and even summarizes payload contents. The undocumented 'platform' parameter is the one thing an agent could get wrong from the description alone.

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 burden and mostly delivers: it explains request, actions (a list drawn from available_actions), and brand_id/workspace_id as a pair for the brands call. The 'platform' parameter is never mentioned anywhere, which is the main gap.

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 ('Microsoft Ads data queries') and frames itself as a planning/setup helper, with each request variant named explicitly. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by saying the details step is 'REQUIRED before querying', which routes the agent toward query_data/execute_action afterwards, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: Step 1 accounts, Step 2 actions_details with the note 'REQUIRED before querying', then optional branches. Each optional request value is labeled 'Optional' and its precondition (brand_id + workspace_id) is stated, leaving no ambiguity about sequence or alternatives.

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