execute_gaql_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about behavior such as error handling, rate limits, query limitations, or output behavior. The one-line description is entirely insufficient for a generic 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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it sacrifices significant behavioral detail. It earns its place as a minimal statement of purpose.

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 tool that accepts arbitrary GAQL queries, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what GAQL is, what query types are supported, any constraints, or what the response looks like. Given no output schema and no annotations, more context is required.

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 three parameters (query, customerId, outputFormat) have descriptions in the schema, reaching 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Execute' with a precise resource 'custom GAQL query'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that have predefined purposes (e.g., get_campaigns, get_keywords) by emphasizing custom queries.

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?

The description implies usage for ad-hoc queries not covered by specialized endpoints, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use this tool.

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