google_ads_btob_optimizations

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: it is read-only, details each check's triggering conditions and priority levels, and describes the output structure. No contradictions exist.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It starts with the overall purpose, then details each check, followed by read-only note and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool is complex with three checks, but the description fully explains each check's logic and output. Since there is no output schema, the description explicitly defines the return structure. All required inputs are covered in the 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described. The description adds extra context for the 'period' parameter, recommending shorter windows for recent changes and longer for baselines. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 runs three B2B-specific optimization checks (ad schedule, device CPA disparity, informational-query ratio) against a Google Ads campaign. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool google_ads_performance_analyze by specifying when to use each.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the advertiser self-identifies as B2B.' It also names the alternative for non-B2B cases: 'For general campaign diagnosis use google_ads_performance_analyze.' This helps the agent choose correctly.

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