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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals critical behavioral facts beyond the name and schema: atomicity, ALWAYS created PAUSED, dry_run validates without creating, bidding_strategy 'auto' resolves via conversion-tracking preflight, and language targeting may be dropped by Google with a server retry and warning. This is far more transparent than typical tool definitions.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, atomicity, dry-run workflow, paused-by-default, bidding behavior, location source, ID format, and sibling routing. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and critical caveats before operational details.

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 complex nested-object create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers workflow, dry-run, activation, data source, bidding override, asset automation constraints, and language-targeting caveat. It could briefly state what the successful response contains in non-dry-run mode, but the available context is otherwise unusually complete.

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 low at 29%, but the description compensates well for key parameters: ad_account_id is a bare 10-digit customer ID, bidding_strategy includes default resolution logic, dry_run semantics are explained, and location IDs are sourced from a specific sibling tool. Some nested parameters like ad_group, rsa, and geo are left mostly to the schema, which prevents a 5, but the most consequential parameters get meaningfully enriched.

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: 'Create a complete Google Ads Search campaign in ONE atomic request'. The scope is precisely defined and the description distinguishes it from the Meta path by saying 'For Meta campaigns use adsap_create_campaign instead', and the word 'Search' differentiates it from sibling Google campaign creators like display, PMax, or Shopping.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and how-to-use guidance: dry_run: true first, then confirm and execute; campaigns are always paused and activated later with adsap_google_set_entity_status; location IDs come from adsap_google_search_geo_targets; and the Meta alternative is named. This gives the agent a complete decision and invocation sequence.

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