get_budget_utilization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are per-campaign and that a single campaign can be isolated, but says nothing about currency/micro units, timezone handling, or result volume — notable given a convert_micros sibling exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then parameter docs in a compact Args block. The second sentence largely restates the first ('budget vs actual spend' / 'how much of each campaign's budget has been utilized'), so there is one redundant line.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers inputs adequately but leaves the return shape opaque — no indication of whether results are per-campaign rows with budget, spend, and a utilization percentage, or what units those numbers use. That gap matters for an agent that must reason about the values.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it explains customer_id as a Google Ads customer ID, gives the date_range format ('YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD' or a predefined value), and marks campaign_id as an optional single-campaign filter. It stops short of listing the allowed predefined range values or the customer-ID format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Get budget vs actual spend for campaigns," plus a second sentence narrowing it to per-campaign budget utilization. That is clearly distinct from generic performance tools like get_campaign_performance, though the description never explicitly says so.

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 exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_campaign_performance or get_account_performance_summary. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this or a performance tool is the right call.

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