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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read and openWorldHint=false that it is closed-world. The description only adds that results are 'rolled-up totals' and account-scoped. It says nothing about how date ranges are handled, what dimensions are aggregated, or what happens when 17 optional filters are omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though this is more under-specification than deliberate brevity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but 17 optional input parameters with zero documentation and no date-range or aggregation guidance make the definition inadequate for correct invocation. One sentence cannot carry this much schema complexity.

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?

All 17 parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Fields like url, days, date_from/date_to, range_preset, page_id, ad_account, and campaign_name are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess at formats and interactions.

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 (Google Ads) and nature of output (rolled-up totals) scoped to 'this account'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from google_ads_get_campaigns (per-campaign) and google_ads_get_trends (time series), but never names those siblings or states the distinction explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage context is the implicit 'for this account' scope. An agent gets no help deciding between this and google_ads_get_campaigns or meta_ads_get_summary.

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