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

Annotations declare destructive/write/non-idempotent, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: every call creates a proposal the user must approve before anything changes, creates are PAUSED, and it is one account per call with no fan-out. Those are exactly the traits an agent needs to plan a write safely.

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?

Front-loads the routing distinction and invocation signature, then organizes the 12 sub-tools by category, so every block is scannable. Slightly redundant in the opening ('not here — that is tiktok_ads … always wrong') repeats the same point twice.

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 router with nested arguments and no output schema, the description covers routing, invocation shape, approval gating, account scoping, and the full inventory of sub-tools. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the properties already document action='execute', tool_name, and the nested arguments object. The description reinforces the dispatch pattern but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource class: the write-side router for the 12 TikTok Ads tools that create, update, pause or remove. It explicitly distinguishes itself from its read sibling, tiktok_ads, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both when-to-use and when-not: reads/listings/checks belong to tiktok_ads, and using this router for a lookup is 'always wrong'. It also names the alternatives (tiktok_ads and tiktok_ads(action="get_tool_schema") for free schema lookup), leaving nothing to inference.

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