google_ads_monitoring_delivery_goal

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, returns a structured composite, defines exact status thresholds ('critical' when diagnostics issues/not ENABLED/impressions==0; 'warning' for warnings or impressions 1-9), and explains suggested_workflow setting. This goes well beyond minimal disclosure.

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 lengthy but every sentence carries essential information: purpose, return structure, status conditions, read-only flag, and alternative tool pointers. It is well-organized and front-loads the purpose before detailed logic.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by fully specifying the return object, status conditions, and workflow behavior. It also situates the tool among related monitoring tools, making it highly complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 both campaign_id and customer_id already well-described. The description does not add further parameter details, but the schema handles it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a Google Ads campaign...') and clearly scopes the purpose to active delivery yesterday. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For the raw diagnostics without the yesterday composite use google_ads_campaigns_diagnose; for CPA-target evaluation use google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal.' This gives both usage context and exclusionary direction.

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