campaign_bid_strategy_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavioral context — the eligibility gate on MAX_CONVERSIONS — but does not state whether the call validates the strategy, what it returns, or how eligibility failure surfaces; output schema covers return values only.

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 sentence with no filler and the eligibility qualifier front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than maximally concise.

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?

With annotations, an output schema, and nested enum-constrained params, most structure is covered elsewhere, so the description only needs to add preview semantics and eligibility rules. It half-does that: the MAX_CONVERSIONS constraint is stated, but what a 'preview' actually computes and returns to the caller is left unexplained.

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 50%, and the description does contribute meaning beyond the schema by tying MAX_CONVERSIONS to App Store Search Results eligibility, which the schema's enums do not express. However it says nothing about the required campaignId/adAccountId scoping or the conditional bid/bidStrategyGoal pairing enforced by dependentRequired.

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 fragment names a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('...strategy') and enumerates the two supported strategy types, but never says it applies to a campaign-level bid strategy; only the tool name supplies that scope. It also leaves 'preview' undefined, so an agent cannot distinguish it cleanly from ad_group_bid_preview, keyword_bid_preview, or campaign_update_preview.

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 statement and no named alternative. The only constraint offered is an implicit eligibility condition ('eligible App Store Search Results' for MAX_CONVERSIONS), which is a precondition rather than guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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