google_ads_health_check_all

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, screens campaigns by primary_status, returns a detailed structure including counts and diagnostics, and limits diagnostics to 5 campaigns. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It covers return type, scope, and alternatives. While slightly lengthy, every sentence earns its place, though it could be more concise.

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 complexity, the simple input schema (one optional param), and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns in detail, and that it is read-only. No gaps identified.

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% for the single optional parameter (customer_id). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 screens every campaign by primary_status and runs diagnostics on up to 5 problem/warning campaigns. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for single-campaign diagnosis and CPA-goal monitoring.

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 usage context: when to use this tool (full account health check) and when not (single-campaign or CPA-goal monitoring), naming specific alternative tools.

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