adsense_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only summarizes what the tool reports. It does not disclose the response format, the default behavior when called with no arguments (LAST_7_DAYS range, auto-selected account), the startDate/endDate mutual dependency, or the rowLimit cap. The read-only nature is implied by 'report', but no explicit safety or side-effect context is given.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the resource (Google AdSense) and function (earnings & performance report), followed by the metric scope. Every element contributes, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool has 8 flexible parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the schema itself is exceptionally well documented (100% coverage with defaults and enums), so the description need not re-explain parameters. However, it does not convey what a zero-argument call returns or how the report output is structured, which matters for such a flexible tool. Adequate orientation, with clear gaps around output and default behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter with defaults and enums, meeting the baseline of 3. The description's mention of default metrics and dimension breakdowns restates schema information rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. No inter-parameter nuance is added beyond what the schema already says.

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 clear function: a Google AdSense earnings and performance report, and enumerates the covered metrics (estimated earnings, impressions, clicks, CTR, RPM) plus dimension breakdowns. This differentiates it from the AdSense-adjacent siblings (adsense_accounts, adsense_payments_alerts) by focusing on reporting rather than account or payment management. It stops short of a 5 because the verb 'report' is generic and sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions adsense_accounts or adsense_payments_alerts, nor any conditions that should route an agent to them, so the agent must infer the boundary from tool names alone. No prerequisites, exclusions, or use-this-instead hints are present.

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