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

Annotations already cover the read-only/safe profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the script executes inside Google with the user's own credentials, the server stores no keys and sees no data, and the alert is an email listing non-converting spend. It omits any note on plan limits or what the returned script text looks like.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, when it runs, and the credential/privacy model. 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?

For a three-parameter generator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: deliverable type, execution location, and privacy posture. Minor gaps remain around what the script actually outputs and any plan restrictions.

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 days, email, and min_spend are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 deliverable: it returns a Google Ads Script to paste into your own account. That distinguishes it from siblings like find_wasted_spend or search_terms, which return analysis rather than a generated artifact.

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 mention of 'Unlimited plan' and 'schedule daily' implies the context (self-hosted daily wasted-spend monitoring), but the description never names an alternative such as find_wasted_spend for users who want results without pasting a script. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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