get_custom_gam_report_by_network

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

The annotation readOnlyHint is present. The description adds that the report is customizable (caller-chosen dimensions/metrics) and that revenue fields are in micros, referencing sibling constraints. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second adds a critical constraint (same as domain tool) and a key detail (revenue in micros). No superfluous text, well front-loaded.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key constraints. It could be improved by mentioning the output format or common dimension/metric examples, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the 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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description only hints at the purpose of dimensions and metrics parameters ('caller-chosen') and does not add new semantic meaning beyond what is already in 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 generates a custom GAM report at the network level, with user-selectable dimensions and metrics. It differentiates itself from the sibling tool get_custom_gam_report_by_domain by explicitly referencing it and noting identical constraints.

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 references the sibling tool get_custom_gam_report_by_domain and notes shared constraints, implying when to use this network-level variant. It also mentions that revenue fields are in micros. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for other scenarios.

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