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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by documenting the JSON Lines output contract: a schema-carrying first line, one JSON object per row, and autodetected value types. It does not mention pagination, limits, or failure modes, but for a read-only report query the added detail is strong.

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?

The description is dense but efficient: three sentences each carry real value, covering the output contract, mandatory parameters, and scope exclusions. The information is front-loaded and there is no 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?

The description compensates well for the missing output schema by specifying the exact response shape and compensates for sibling ambiguity by scoping metric reports versus entity snapshots. Minor gaps remain around pagination, limits, and error handling, but the tool is adequately documented for correct invocation.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly reiterates that startDate, endDate, and reportAggregation are required and time-bound, without adding significant new meaning beyond the already-detailed schema descriptions for accountId, report, columns, and predicates.

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 states the exact action (execute), the resource (Microsoft Ads performance report query), and the scope (one account over a date range). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from entity/configuration snapshots, differentiating it from sibling report-list and bulk-query tools.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: performance/metric reports bound by a date range. It also states what it is not for (entity/configuration snapshots without metrics or date range), but it does not name the specific sibling tool to use instead, so it falls just short of the strongest routing guidance.

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