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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the redundant 'Read-only' line adds little. The one piece of genuine added behavior is 'Auto-selects the active account', which explains how the target is resolved and complements the empty customer_id default. It does not say what happens if no active account exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, and packs the findings list into a single dense sentence without filler. The ALL-CAPS emphasis and embedded currency symbol are stylistically noisy but do not cost much space.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile, keeping the bar low. The remaining gap is the two completely undocumented parameters, which is a meaningful omission for a tool that takes a lookback window.

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 0% and neither of the two parameters (days, customer_id) is mentioned anywhere in the description. The 'Auto-selects the active account' line partially explains customer_id being optional, but nothing explains what 'days' controls or its 30-day default, leaving both parameters undocumented in structured and prose form.

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 action (surfaces critical findings) on a specific resource (connected Google Ads account) and enumerates the exact findings categories: wasted spend, lost impression share, conversion-tracking issues. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling account_audit, which sounds closely related.

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 '(activation)' tag hints at an onboarding use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative account_audit or conversion_tracking_health siblings that overlap heavily with the described findings. The agent is left to infer when this is preferable.

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