google_ads_campaigns_diagnose

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states 'Read-only — does not change anything.' Describes output format (ordered list with plain-language description and remediation hint) and data sources (serving_status, primary_status, etc.). Sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences, very efficient. Front-loads the main function, then details output, then read-only note, then usage guidance. No wasted words; every 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?

No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: an ordered list of issues with plain-language descriptions and remediation hints. It even gives examples of issues (LIMITED_BY_BUDGET, etc.). Complete for a diagnostic tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by noting that customer_id is optional and falls back to configured credentials. It also implies that campaign_id is required for diagnosis, matching the schema. This additional context justifies a 4.

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?

Clearly states the tool 'explains why a campaign is not serving or under-delivering' and returns an ordered list of issues. Verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'analysis_anomalies_check' and 'google_ads_keywords_diagnose' by focusing on campaign-level serving issues.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before pulling raw performance reports; it narrows the problem space.' Provides clear context for when to use, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use. Still, the guidance is practical and actionable.

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