google_ads_health_check_all

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details read-only nature, screening all campaigns, limiting diagnostics to 5, and return fields. This is transparent, though it could clarify if diagnostics are always run or only on demand.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear front-loading of purpose, return details, and alternatives. Slightly verbose due to listing all return fields, but each sentence adds value.

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 (health check with diagnostics), the description is thorough. It explains the screening logic, return structure, read-only nature, and sibling tools. Output schema is absent but return structure is described in text.

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% with one optional parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the customer_id parameter and fallback. 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 clearly states it screens every campaign by primary_status and runs diagnostics on up to 5 problem/warning campaigns. It specifies the return structure and distinguishes from siblings like google_ads_campaigns_diagnose and google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal.

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 'Read-only' and provides when-to-use alternatives: 'For single-campaign delivery diagnosis use google_ads_campaigns_diagnose; for CPA-goal monitoring use google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal.'

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