google_ads_btob_optimizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' and details the three checks with exact conditions and priority levels (e.g., 'Device fires MEDIUM when Mobile CPA > Desktop CPA * 1.3'). It also describes the return structure. However, it doesn't mention what happens if no issues are found (likely empty suggestions).

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 two paragraphs, well-structured, with no fluff. First paragraph states purpose and output format; second lists checks and usage guidelines. Each sentence earns its place.

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 has only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers input details, behavior, output structure, and usage context. Minor gap: doesn't specify that suggestions can be empty if no issues found, but that's implicit.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the customer_id fallback, how to obtain campaign_id, and provides usage guidance for the period parameter (e.g., 'Use a shorter window... when diagnosing recent changes'). This enriches the schema definitions.

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 that the tool runs three specific B2B optimization checks (ad schedule, device CPA disparity, informational-query ratio) against a Google Ads campaign. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'For general campaign diagnosis use google_ads_performance_analyze.'

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the advertiser self-identifies as B2B' and provides an alternative: 'For general campaign diagnosis use google_ads_performance_analyze.' This offers clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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