Account overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful output context (returned fields and account-wide metrics) but does not disclose operational behavior such as how date range selection interacts with parameters; the schema covers that.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the key output categories and lists precise fields and metrics. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the returned account details and metrics well enough for an agent to understand what it will receive. Remaining invocation details are fully covered by the input 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond referencing the date range, which is already represented by start_date, end_date, and date_range.

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 identifies the resource (account) and the payload (account settings plus performance totals). It distinguishes account-level scope from sibling campaign/ad-group tools, but lacks an explicit action verb such as 'get' or 'list'.

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 phrase 'account-wide totals' gives clear context that this is for account-level reporting, which separates it from campaign_performance, ad_group_performance, and similar siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is clear enough for selection.

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