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

Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description correctly focuses on additive details: the dual-mode scoping (MCC vs. customer), the optional customer_id behavior, and the batch execution path. The batch semantics and conditional scope switching are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond what the annotations declare, though no output/return format is mentioned.

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, information-dense sentences. The first sentence fronts the most important distinction (with/without account scope), the second enriches with the optional customer_id behavior, and the third covers the bulk-use case. Zero filler words and each clause adds new information.

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 read-only status tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key decision space: the two operating scopes and the bulk path. It's held back slightly by not defining what 'details' means or any output shape, but given the readOnly/idempotent annotations and the simple parameter list, this is close to a complete picture.

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?

With a 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, and it largely succeeds: 'account' toggles scope (implied by 'With/Without account'), 'customer_id' is established as optional for scoped details, and 'customer_ids' enables bulk operations. The only gap is that the account parameter isn't explicitly named (e.g., with backticks) and the parameter formats/constraints aren't specified, but for three all-optional params, this is solid compensation.

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 provides status overviews at two scopes (MCC-level overview vs. account-specific details) using a specific conditional structure (without/with 'account'). It differentiates reasonably from siblings like google_ads_account and google_ads_performance by focusing on status/overview at the account level; however, it never explicitly says what 'status' conceptually is (e.g., connectivity, campaign health) and doesn't differentiate from the similarly-scoped google_ads_performance.

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 explains the two invocation modes (no account for MCC-wide overview, with account/customer_id for scoped details) and notes bulk execution via customer_ids, which tells the agent how to select parameters. However, it never names alternatives or explains when to choose a sibling over this tool (e.g., when to use google_ads_performance or google_ads_account instead).

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