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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is refreshed overnight, is a periodic roll-up not live state, can miss/misreport granular details, and account_id is resolved server-side. No contradiction; description enriches beyond annotations.

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?

Structured with clear sections (what it is, use for, not for, parameter resolution). Every sentence carries value; slightly long but that length is justified by the need to disambiguate from many related tools. Not overly verbose for the guidance it provides.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers staleness/latency, explicit exclusions, alternative tools, and param semantics. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'question' parameter is described in the schema. The description adds semantic scope: clarifies what kinds of questions are appropriate (firmographic, recent history) and what is excluded, and explains the account_id is not caller-supplied. This meaningfully helps the agent formulate the parameter.

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 ('Query'), resource ('caller's own account CONTEXT'), and describes it as a rolled-up summary. Distinguishes from siblings through explicit USE FOR / NOT FOR sections, e.g. 'NOT FOR the account's CURRENT LIVE STATE' and names live-analytics alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (grounding recommendations in account history), when not to use, and names alternative tools and categories (`account_level_stats`, `performance_metrics`, `demographic_country_stats`, `search_campaigns_by_names`, `query_metadata_analytics_benchmarks`). Also notes cross-tenant queries are rejected. This is complete usage guidance.

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