account_overviewRetrieve spend, clicks, conversions, and cost per conversion per campaign across a look-back window to identify underperforming ads and cut wasted spend.
Spend, clicks, conversions and cost per conversion per campaign over a window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-back window in days, ending yesterday | |
| customer_id | Yes | Google Ads customer ID, with or without dashes (from list_accounts) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Input schema / properties / confirm_switchRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Only after the user has agreed to spend their plan's account switch (a call answered \"Account switch:\"). Leave out otherwise",
- "type": "boolean"
-}v0.14.1Input schema / properties / confirm_switchAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only after the user has agreed to spend their plan's account switch (a call answered \"Account switch:\"). Leave out otherwise",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not mention aggregation semantics, rate limits, auth scopes, or what happens when the window exceeds available history.
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 listing the metrics and their grouping, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter reporting tool.
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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned metrics and their grouping. However, it omits whether additional metrics exist, whether the response can be broken down by day, and any pagination or size caveats an agent would need.
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% and both parameters are well documented in the schema, including the 'ending yesterday' nuance for days. The description's phrase 'over a window' only loosely gestures at the days parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Names the concrete outputs (spend, clicks, conversions, cost per conversion) and the granularity (per campaign) over a window, so an agent knows this is a reporting/aggregation read. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as run_gaql or search_console_summary, which could plausibly return overlapping data.
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 guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over run_gaql, and no prerequisites stated in the description itself. The only routing hint (customer_id from list_accounts) lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.