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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the JSON Lines structure with a schema marker, autodetected value types, and the fact that it returns raw configuration data rather than time-bound metrics. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and output format, the second clarifies scope and contrast. Every clause earns its place.

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 bulk query tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format and its non-performance nature. Minor omissions like pagination or limits are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers required inputs.

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 description clearly states the tool executes a Microsoft Ads bulk query for a single account and specifies the output format (JSON Lines with a schema line). It explicitly contrasts with time-bound performance metrics, distinguishing this from siblings like ms_ads_execute_report_query.

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 description provides clear usage context by stating this is for entity/configuration snapshots without date range or aggregation, implying it should not be used for performance metrics. Though it doesn't name the alternative tool explicitly, the distinction is actionable.

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