ads_project_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a computation/read but never states whether it is read-only, what permissions or project state it requires, whether results are cached or live, or how the aggregate vs per-campaign results are returned — a notable gap given there is also no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich 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?

Three parameters at 0% schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema means the description must explain the date-range contract and the return shape. It gestures at outputs ('aggregate and per-campaign KPIs') but leaves the agent unable to form a correct from/to query or know what the response contains.

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% for three parameters. 'for one project' gives weak context for project_id, but the 'from' and 'to' parameters are completely unexplained — no date format, no default window, no timezone, no inclusion/exclusion semantics for the boundaries. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 ('Calculate') and a specific resource ('aggregate and per-campaign KPIs for one project'), which an agent can distinguish from raw report fetchers like ads_google_ads_report. However it never names or contrasts the closely related siblings ads_campaign_analytics and ads_campaign_timeseries, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No statement of when to use this instead of ads_campaign_analytics, ads_campaign_timeseries, or the per-platform report tools. The only implicit scoping signal is 'for one project', which hints at project-level rather than campaign-level queries but gives no explicit selection criteria or prerequisites.

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