find_wasted_spend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the filtering behavior (spend >= min_spend, conversions <= max_conversions) and sort order, which are non-obvious behavioral traits. It doesn't cover permissions or data scope beyond search terms, but enough is disclosed for a read-only analysis 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds value: resource, filter criteria, sort order, and actionable use case.

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?

With an output schema present, return values don't need description. However, the description ignores the time-range parameter and row-limit control, which are important for correct invocation. It is adequate for a simple report but has clear gaps in parameter context.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains min_spend and max_conversions and implies a spend sort, but omits account_id, max_rows, and predefined_time, leaving important controls undocumented. Partial coverage only; not sufficient.

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 ('find') and clearly identifies the resource: search terms meeting spend/conversion criteria, sorted by spend descending. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools and related actions like apply_negatives_from_waste by focusing on the analysis/candidate-identification step.

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 states the tool's context: it surfaces waste candidates suitable for negative keywords. This clearly implies when to use it (before adding negatives), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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