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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the 7-day-before/up-to-7-day-after comparison methodology, the cost/clicks/conversions metrics, the win/loss/flat/too-new verdict taxonomy, and the caveat that non-Google/Meta platforms are listed without a verdict. "Reads only" only restates readOnlyHint=true, so it is mildly redundant but the rest is genuinely informative.

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?

Front-loads what the tool reviews, then explains the analysis, then the usage cue, then the safety note. The verdict-taxonomy sentence is dense but earns its place by setting output expectations; nothing is filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly covers the return shape conceptually (comparison metrics and verdict labels) and the coverage limit for other platforms. It omits pagination/size limits or the N-day default, which are minor gaps for this read-only tool.

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 100%, so both `days` and `client` are already documented in the schema, and the description only echoes the N-day window. It adds no syntax or client-identifier detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (review the changes confirmed through Agency Autopilot) plus scope (last N days) and explicitly names the platforms covered (Google Ads, Meta). An agent can distinguish it from sibling audit/autopilot tools without opening the schema.

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?

"Use for a weekly review or when asked whether recent changes worked" gives clear triggering contexts. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g., versus audit_client or autopilot_log), so it stops short of 5.

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