google ads health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral context: it verifies credential presence, API access, login customer visibility, API version, and explicitly guarantees it does not return secrets. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful expectations for the agent, though it does not describe the exact structure of warnings (likely covered by the output schema).

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose ('Read-only connectivity check') immediately, then lists specific checks. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is maximally efficient.

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 no-parameter tool with a known output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what it checks, that it is read-only, and that it omits secrets. No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the calibration baseline, a no-parameter tool earns a 4 since there is nothing to clarify; the description correctly focuses on behavior instead of parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('connectivity') and enumerates what it verifies (credential presence, API access, login customer visibility, API version, warnings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval and mutation tools, which all target specific data sets rather than infrastructure health.

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 the tool is for validating connectivity before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given its unique role among siblings, the intent is inferable, but there is no direct guidance on placement in a workflow or conditions that warrant running it.

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