google_ads_health_check_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only', describes the detailed return payload (counts, categories, diagnostics), and discloses the diagnostic limit of 5 campaigns. This provides complete transparency about what the tool does and does not modify.

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 dense but well-organized: it opens with the action, enumerates the return structure, states read-only, and lists alternatives. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the semicolon-separated return structure compactly conveys the output schema in the absence of a structured output definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape, including category definitions, diagnostic fields, and ordering rules ('problem-first, then warning'). It also covers the optional-customer_id behavior via the schema and gives clear usage boundaries (up to 5 campaigns). This is a complete picture for a read-only health-check 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?

The input schema fully covers the only parameter (customer_id) with a clear description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Screen every campaign') and resource ('Google Ads account'), defining the exact scope and diagnostic limit ('up to 5 problem/warning campaigns'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming google_ads_campaigns_diagnose and google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal as alternatives for different use cases.

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 states when to use this tool: for account-wide health screening by primary_status. It provides clear exclusions and alternatives: 'For single-campaign delivery diagnosis use google_ads_campaigns_diagnose; for CPA-goal monitoring use google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal.' This gives the agent direct decision criteria.

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