optimization_audit

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — suggests, doesn't change anything,' which fully discloses the non-destructive nature of the tool. This is especially valuable because no annotations are provided, making the description carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure.

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 mostly efficient: it front-loads the purpose and packs a long list of output details, which is justified by the tool's wide scope. The final 'Read-only' sentence adds key behavioral info. It is slightly dense but each item serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the main output categories and the read-only nature, which is sufficient given that an output schema exists (so return values need not be detailed). It does not explain all parameters, but the schema already provides names and defaults, so the description is adequately complete for a tool with an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly mentions 'target_cpa' and implies 'min_wasted_spend' via 'wasted' terminology, but it does not explain 'lookback' or 'min_wasted_spend' by name. Partial compensation but incomplete.

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 ('Audit') and resource ('account'), and enumerates distinct output categories (wasted search terms, low-quality-score keywords, etc.), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_wasted_spend or performance_report. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context (auditing the account for optimization opportunities) and provides a conditional ('if target_cpa given'), but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No named alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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