reports.get

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond annotations: Master Campaign campaigns are absent from campaigns.get with no error or marker, the report sees everything that was served, and monetary amounts are returned in account currency (rubles), not micro-units.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by high-value caveats and a documentation link. Each paragraph earns its place, though the account-composition caveat is somewhat long.

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 with ten parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: report scope, account composition caveat, currency behavior, and a link to field documentation. It does not describe response structure or potential async behavior, but the schema and docs link cover most invocation needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful context about currency for amount fields but does not explain individual parameters; the schema carries the burden, making baseline 3 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 clearly identifies the tool as a statistics report covering impressions, clicks, cost, and conversions across campaigns, ad groups, ads, and queries. It also distinguishes it from campaigns.get by explicitly stating that the report sees the full account composition, while campaigns.get omits Master Campaigns.

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 gives explicit routing guidance against a named alternative: account composition must be determined from this report, not from campaigns.get, because campaigns.get silently omits Master Campaigns. It also labels the tool as the primary accounting instrument. It does not address every sibling tool, but the key alternative is covered.

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