AdSense report

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already declare the safe-read, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds nothing behavioral on top: no note on default date-range behavior, pagination via limit, filter semantics, or result shape. The dimension/metric lists are parameter vocabulary, not behavioral 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?

It is a single run-on sentence with two long inline lists. The lists are load-bearing (they define valid inputs) and the purpose leads, but there is no structural break separating what the tool does from the enumerated vocabulary, which hurts scanability.

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?

For a 9-parameter, nested-object, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers which dimensions/metrics are legal but omits how to use it (no routing guidance, no prerequisites, no expectation-setting on defaults). It is adequate to invoke the tool but leaves meaningful gaps for a reporting tool of this complexity.

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 low (44%) and none of the 9 parameters have enums, but the description compensates for the two riskiest ones by enumerating valid dimensions and metrics. It does not touch limit, currencyCode, orderBy, or filter operators, though the schema documents account, filters, startDate and endDate. Net value over the schema is real but partial, landing at 3.

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 states a specific resource and scope: an AdSense report supporting 'any dimensions and metrics', with concrete examples of both. An agent can tell this pulls AdSense performance data rather than generic reporting. It stops short of naming siblings (e.g. ga_report, bing_report, adsense_list_accounts) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. requiring an account id from adsense_list_accounts), and no mention of alternatives like ga_report or page_revenue. The reader must infer that this is the AdSense reporting path purely from the name and dimension/metric examples.

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