google_ads_network_performance_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, filtering of Display/YouTube/Discover rows, and rounding of specific metrics. This is comprehensive, though it could mention data freshness or potential rate limits. The description adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs a lot of information into a single paragraph without redundancy. Minor improvement could be using bullet points for the output fields, but it remains highly readable.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (list of fields with types and examples). It also covers data filters, rounding behavior, and usage context. The tool is moderately complex, and the description leaves no gaps for an agent to misunderstand.

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%, and each parameter already has detailed descriptions. The description adds no new param-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 reports Google Ads performance split by ad network, listing exact output fields. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming google_ads_performance_report (overall totals) and google_ads_ad_performance_report (per-ad breakdowns), leaving no ambiguity.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to decide whether to toggle Search Partners. It also provides when-not-to-use by referencing alternative tools for overall campaign totals and per-ad breakdowns, which is excellent usage context.

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