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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat — that a failed operation is not retried by this call — which meaningfully shapes agent expectations, though it says nothing about how status values are reported (deferred to 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 short sentences, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the caveat second. Every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. The one real gap is the unexplained connection_context parameter in an otherwise simple two-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does identify report_ref as the handle for the report, but it says nothing about the second parameter, connection_context, whose purpose and expected format are entirely undocumented outside the regex pattern. Partial compensation only.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read the status of your support report') plus the identifier used to do it, which is enough to distinguish it from support_report_error and the various google_ads_*_get tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name 'report status'; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus support_report_error or what precondition (a previously created report_ref) must hold. The trailing clause hints at scope ('does not retry') but does not route the agent to an alternative retry tool.

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