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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides useful detail: dry_run shows current vs new status validated by Google without applying anything, and calls are capped at 20 entities. It does not disclose potential downstream effects like delivery/billing impact or authentication prerequisites, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core function, dry_run, activation policy, id format, account id format, and sibling routing. The description front-loads the main purpose and avoids fluff.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all required parameters, tricky id formats, dry_run semantics, and alternative routing. It is missing an explicit statement of what a successful non-dry_run call returns and where to get IDs for campaign, ad_group, and ad entities.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains composite keyword ids ('<ad_group_id>:<criterion_id>'), the bare 10-digit ad_account_id format, the dry_run behavior, and the max entity count. However, it leaves the '~' variant in the id pattern unexplained and does not specify how to source campaign/ad_group/ad ids.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pause or reactivate') tied to a precise resource set ('Google Ads campaigns, ad groups, ads, or keywords') and a max of 20 per call. It also distinguishes itself from the Meta-oriented sibling by explicitly directing Meta entities to adsap_set_entity_status.

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?

The description explicitly says to use adsap_set_entity_status for Meta entities, establishes when 'activate' is appropriate ('only when the user has explicitly requested to resume or enable'), and instructs using dry_run to preview changes without applying them. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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