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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the target can be a dotted catalog operation (google_ads.get_structure) as well as a tool, but says nothing about what the returned schema looks like or whether output is text or structured.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core subject stated first and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter introspection tool, though the parenthetical example arrives before the reader knows what a 'catalog operation' means.

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 no output schema, the description should at least characterize the return value; 'the full argument schema' does so loosely. It is not enough for a tool whose only job is introspection and which sits next to a same-purpose sibling — the agent lacks the discriminator it needs.

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 0% — the required `name` parameter has no description in the schema — so the description must carry the burden. It partially compensates by showing the dotted-operation format 'google_ads.get_structure', which implies accepted values extend beyond plain tool names, but it never states the expected format explicitly for the tool-name case.

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 names the resource (the full argument schema) and its scope (a tool or a catalog operation), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and gives no differentiation from the near-identical sibling get_tool_schema or from search_tools. An agent can guess the purpose but cannot tell it apart from siblings on the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. With a sibling literally named get_tool_schema, the omission is costly — the agent has no stated basis for choosing one over the other, and no prerequisites or call ordering are mentioned.

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