list_dv360_report_queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds two useful facts — the underlying Bid Manager v2 API and the 100-item cap — but says nothing about pagination behavior or what a returned definition contains, which matters for an openWorld listing 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the practical reason. No wasted wording, though "Reuse matching queries" is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous about what to match on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with 0% schema coverage on three parameters and no mention of how to page past the 100-result cap, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this confidently at scale.

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 0%, so all three parameters (account, page_size, page_token) rely on bare titles. The description's "max 100" partially explains the page_size ceiling but gives no meaning for account scoping or how page_token continuation works, leaving the bulk of the parameter surface undocumented.

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?

A specific verb+resource: "List existing DV360 report definitions via Bid Manager v2". It clearly identifies the object type (report definitions/queries), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby siblings list_dv360_reports or get_dv360_report.

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?

"Reuse matching queries" implies the intended workflow (check existing definitions before calling create_dv360_report_query), but it never names that alternative or states the condition explicitly. The agent must infer that list_dv360_reports is a different listing and this one is for report definitions.

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