Run a GAQL search

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

With no annotations, the description states 'Read-only' which discloses the key behavioral trait that no data is modified. However, it does not warn about potential performance issues, error handling for invalid GAQL queries, or access permissions, leaving some transparency gaps for a raw query tool.

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 two concise sentences; the first defines the action and read-only nature, the second provides usage guidance. There is no verbosity.

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, the description gives the purpose, scope, read-only nature, and a usage guideline. It lacks explicit details about error handling or response format, but with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials for an agent 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?

The single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema with an example, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. The tool-level description mentions raw GAQL but doesn't further elaborate on the parameter's format beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool runs a raw GAQL SELECT query against the configured customer account, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_campaigns by noting it's for custom reports beyond that tool's coverage.

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?

It explicitly recommends using this tool for custom reports beyond what get_campaigns covers, which implies get_campaigns is the alternative for standard reports. However, it doesn't enumerate other sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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