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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: a plan requirement, an explicit 'never writes to the account' guarantee reinforced by the manual review/import workflow, and the concrete import path in Google Ads Editor. This goes past readOnlyHint=true by explaining who applies the change and how.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. Leading with "Unlimited plan" is slightly odd as a front-loaded opener, since the tool's actual function arrives second, but the rest is efficient.

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 does what it must: names the output format (CSV), the import target (Google Ads Editor, Make multiple changes > import), and the safety model. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, including per-parameter explanations for keep_terms and match_type, so the description can rely on the schema. It mentions none of the five parameters, so it neither helps nor compensates — baseline 3.

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 output: it finds non-converting search terms and returns a CSV for Google Ads Editor import. Clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_wasted_spend or search_terms, which an agent will have to guess between.

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?

"Unlimited plan" hints at an eligibility condition, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over find_wasted_spend, search_terms, or pause_file. The usage context is implied by the CSV/Editor framing rather than stated.

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