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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds rich context beyond that: required permissions (mcp.assets.refresh, allow_pull), the exact scope boundary (no metrics/assets pull, no Google mutation, no MCC linking), and the fact that it reuses account discovery. This tells the agent precisely what state changes and what does not.

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?

The description is a tight, front-loaded block with no padding; each sentence carries prerequisite, scope, or sequencing information. It is dense with internal jargon (needs_sync, allow_pull, customer_not_owned) but does not waste words.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers preconditions, scope limits, and the required post-sync re-read, so an agent knows how to invoke and sequence it. It stops short of full completeness only because parameter roles remain unstated.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies connection_ref identifies 'one owned connection', but connection_context is never explained, and neither parameter's format/role is clarified beyond the regex patterns already in the schema. This leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 resource ('sync account registration for one owned connection') with explicit scope. It clearly separates itself from siblings like google_ads_accounts_list and the mutation/prepare-confirm pairs by naming what it does not do (no metrics/assets pull, no Google mutation, no MCC linking).

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('after needs_sync or a live-discovered account is missing from the ledger'), prerequisites ('Requires mcp.assets.refresh and allow_pull'), a follow-up action ('re-read google_ads_accounts_list before account reads'), and a caution ('Do not infer missing Google access from customer_not_owned'). This is a full when/when-not/next-step specification.

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