daily_budget_recommendation_apply_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by flagging that the applied budget is bounded by an 'explicit maximum', but it never says what happens when the recommendation exceeds that maximum (rejected, capped, clamped) or that no state changes occur on the server.

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 the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in the other dimensions rather than being strength through economy alone.

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 means return values need not be explained and annotations cover safety, but for a 6-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage the description should still clarify the appliedAmount/maximumAmount interaction and the promotedObjectId source. Those omissions are material for calling it correctly.

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 33%: profile and adAccountId are documented, while recommendationId, promotedObjectId, appliedAmount and maximumAmount are not. The description only gestures at maximumAmount ('explicit maximum') and 'one' recommendation; it says nothing about appliedAmount versus maximumAmount or what promotedObjectId identifies, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 applying'), a specific resource ('one daily-budget recommendation'), and a scoping constraint ('under an explicit maximum'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the target_cpa_recommendation_apply_preview and dismiss_preview siblings by naming the resource type, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 versus daily_budget_recommendation_apply (the real apply) or daily_budget_recommendation_dismiss_preview, and no prerequisite noted (e.g. fetch IDs via daily_budget_recommendations first). Only the word 'Preview' hints at the workflow, leaving the agent to infer everything.

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