Measured account overview

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: this comes from a preview API and requires an AVADA_API_KEY. It also defines failure behavior — surface the unavailability reason and steps, and never invent or zero-fill numbers — which is a meaningful guardrail for a read tool whose natural failure mode is silent empty data. Return-shape detail is absent, but the enumerated contents partly substitute.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the caller gets, then the environment requirement, then the failure protocol. The first sentence is a dense enumeration and 'as Avada sees them' is slightly vague, but no sentence is expendable.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description does most of the work by listing the data domains returned, so an agent knows what a successful response covers without a schema. It is nearly complete for a no-arg read; the remaining gap is its relationship to the overlapping measurement setup/health siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to elaborate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument account-scoped snapshot with no filtering options.

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 enumerates a specific composite resource: store, connected ad account, pixel and Conversions API state, and the ready-to-advertise checklist, 'as Avada sees them.' That is far more informative than the title 'Measured account overview.' It does not, however, distinguish this overview from overlapping siblings such as measurement_get_setup_status or measurement_get_tracking_health, which cover parts of the same ground.

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: the enumeration of composite state suggests a starting-point/health-check read, and the fallback instruction ('If it answers unavailable, tell the user the reason and steps') gives concrete handling guidance. Nothing states when to prefer this over the narrower setup-status or tracking-health siblings, or when not to call it.

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