ad_group_schedule_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't explain what the preview output contains or whether the preview has side effects.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the key concepts front-loaded. Brevity is appropriate, though it leaves gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a 5-parameter scheduling tool with 40% schema coverage and an openWorld read, the description should at least clarify the time format and the apply-after-preview workflow.

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 only 40% (only profile and adAccountId are documented). The description says nothing about startTime/endTime, which are nullable strings with no stated format, timezone, or null semantics — a critical gap for a scheduling tool.

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 (Preview) and resource (ad-group start/end schedule update), distinguishing it from the sibling campaign_schedule_preview by scope. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 'preview' naming convention implies this is a dry-run before an apply step, but the description never states when to use it versus ad_group_update_preview or how the previewed change is committed. Usage is only inferable from the tool family pattern.

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