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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no pagination behavior, no auth/scope requirements, no note on what the counts represent or their refresh semantics.

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 short sentence with no filler, appropriately front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate structure-wise even though the content is under-specified for a 17-parameter tool.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the definition is far too thin for a tool exposing 17 optional parameters with zero schema documentation and no usage routing. An agent has little basis for deciding when to call it or what the inputs do.

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% across 17 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only loosely gestures at resource types (Google/Meta/SEO) without mapping to any of url, days, limit, client_id, ad_account, ig_user_id, property_name, range_preset, activity_only, or the rest.

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 fragment 'Connected Google/Meta/SEO resource counts for this account' does communicate the data domain (connected resource counts), but it lacks a verb and sits in tension with the title 'Kampalo account overview,' which implies something broader than counts. It gives no differentiation from overview-style siblings such as shopify_get_overview or meta_organic_get_overview.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many analytics/overview siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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