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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: this is a long-running follow operation that completes when every ad exists, it surfaces per-platform refusal outcomes, and it explains the meaning of the 'interrupted' status plus the risk of duplicate ads if you relaunch blindly.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action plus its completion condition lead. The clause 'with what to do when a platform refused one' is slightly elliptical and reads as a dangling fragment, but the cost is small.

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?

For a polling tool with no output schema, the description should convey what the response contains. It explains the 'interrupted' status but leaves the rest of the status vocabulary and per-ad/per-platform result structure undocumented, which is the main gap for an agent deciding how to interpret and re-poll.

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 the single parameter, so the description carries the burden. It does name plan_id and ties it to the launch entity, but it does not say where plan_id comes from (e.g., a launch response or list_launches) or give any format hints.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: follow a launch by plan_id until all ads are created, and reports platform refusals. That is clearly distinct from listing siblings such as list_launches or from import_status/bridge_transfer_status, though no sibling is named 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?

It implies the usage context (poll a launch after submitting it, keyed by plan_id) and gives remediation guidance for the 'interrupted' case: check Ads Manager before relaunching. It never says when not to use it or names an alternative tool such as list_launches for browsing past launches.

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