query_sa360

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra value is in disclosing the one-page limit, Google-side field validation, and pagination continuation requirements. It does not cover error modes or rate limits, but it adds useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then adds only high-value operational notes. Each sentence contributes distinct guidance, with no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 SQL-like SA360 query tool, the description covers the essentials: read-only SELECT semantics, one-page behavior, manager scoping, field validation, field discovery, and pagination. It is mostly complete, but the lack of explanation for the account parameter and query syntax details keeps it short of fully self-contained.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: it explains bare numeric customer_id format, login_customer_id manager selection, and argument preservation for page_token. However, it leaves the account parameter unexplained and does not clarify page_size behavior beyond the page maximum, so several parameter semantics remain ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: run a read-only Search Ads 360 SELECT query and return one page. The purpose is clear, and it names search_sa360_fields as the field-discovery sibling, but it does not distinguish this flexible query tool from siblings like get_sa360_campaign_performance or list_sa360_customers.

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?

Gives practical usage guidance: use bare numeric customer IDs, use login_customer_id for manager access, and preserve arguments when following nextPageToken. It also points agents to search_sa360_fields for discovering fields, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over prebuilt SA360 retrieval tools.

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