gads_account_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval ('Get') and specifies the output scope (aggregate account metrics + top campaigns), which is sufficient behavioral context for a low-risk reporting tool. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but that is less critical for this simple read operation.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, then lists the key metrics and the distinctive top-5-campaigns output. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and every phrase contributes useful information.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no complex nested structures, this description is complete. It fully informs the agent of what the tool returns and at what level of detail, without needing to explain the parameter since the schema already covers it.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'dateRange' with an enum, default value, and a description. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Google Ads account'), and clearly enumerates the metrics returned (spend, clicks, impressions, conversions, key averages) plus a distinctive 'top 5 campaigns' detail. This differentiates it from sibling tools like gads_campaign_performance and gads_keyword_performance, which focus on lower-level breakdowns.

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 phrase 'high-level summary' implies a broad overview use case, and the 'top 5 campaigns' detail suggests it is meant for quick insights rather than deep dives. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as gads_campaign_performance or gads_keyword_performance, leaving usage context only implied.

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