account_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Snapshot' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose behavioral constraints like rate limits or data freshness. The flag examples provide some behavioral context.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core value proposition, and includes specific output details in a compact list. No filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description provides clear overall purpose and usage context. It omits parameter explanation and caveats, but this is somewhat mitigated by the schema's default for predefined_time.

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% and the description does not mention any parameters. 'predefined_time' is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and allowed values. This is a significant gap.

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 states it provides a 'One-call health snapshot' with account KPIs, per-campaign breakdown, and flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like performance_report or find_wasted_spend by framing it as the 'best starting point' for account 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 explicitly says 'Best starting point for "how are my ads doing?"', which gives clear guidance on when to use it. It implies an initial assessment scenario but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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