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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the metric list as return context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, limits, or whether paused campaigns are included in spend — and the metric list partly duplicates the output schema.

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 compact sentences: the resource/metric scope comes first, the usage examples second. The only waste is the "[DEMO SINTÉTICA]" prefix, which carries no operational meaning for an agent.

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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the definition gives enough to call the tool correctly and know what it returns. Remaining gaps (ordering, pagination, campaign-count limits) are minor for a listing tool.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including accepted formats and the default (últimos 30 días). The description adds no additional constraint or format guidance beyond what the schema already states, so 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 resource and granularity ("Desglose de Google Ads campaña por campaña") and enumerates the metrics returned (nombre, estado, gasto, clics, impresiones, conversiones, CTR). This implicitly separates it from get_google_ads_summary and the keyword/search-term listers, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrasings ("qué campañas de Google Ads tenemos", "campaña que mejor funciona", "performance por campaña") that map user intent to this tool. It stops short of stating when to prefer get_google_ads_summary instead, so an exclusion rule is missing.

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