run_gaql_query

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

Discloses read-only nature and that limit is hard-capped at 10,000. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Missing details on error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but adequately conveys core behavior.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second explains escape-hatch responsibility, third provides guidance. Front-loaded, no waste, every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. Covers core behavior, raw-query nature, prerequisite metadata tools, and parameter constraints. Adequate for 3-param tool; omission of error semantics is minor.

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 100%, but description adds value: explains $query is a GAQL query with example syntax, clarifies limit cap, and mentions customer_id validation (digits only, hyphens stripped). Adds meaningful context beyond 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?

Clearly states 'Run a read-only GAQL query against a customer account.' Specific verb+resource+read-only nature distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaigns or get_keywords, and the 'escape hatch' phrasing sets it apart.

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?

Explicitly recommends using metadata-discovery tools first ('get_segments_metadata / get_metrics_metadata / get_resource_metadata'), and notes that the caller is responsible for valid GAQL. Lacks explicit 'when not to use,' but context with siblings implies it's for custom queries beyond predefined tools.

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