google_ads_wasted_spend_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the tool as an 'analysis' but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not explicit.

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 well-structured with lists for analyses, parameters, and an example. It is concise, using bullet points and clear sections, every sentence adds value.

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 tool's analysis purpose and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool analyzes and returns. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites or permissions, which would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning for all three parameters: customer_id format (10 digits, no hyphens), date_range options (LAST_7_DAYS, etc.), and min_cost (default $10). This compensates well for the schema 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 the tool's purpose: 'Identify sources of wasted ad spend and optimization opportunities.' It lists specific analyses (e.g., high-cost keywords, poor match types), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_account_performance.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied but not compared to other tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are provided.

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