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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the key side effects: campaign, ad set and ads are created PAUSED, nothing spends until go_live_ad_campaign, and polling get_ad_campaign returns launching, then paused, or draft with launch_error. This is materially useful behavioral context for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 three tight sentences, front-loading the action and immediately following with the most important safety constraint and polling behavior. Nothing is wasted.

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 annotations, a fully documented single parameter, an output schema, and the description covering side effects, safety gating, and post-call polling, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 only parameter is already documented as 'A draft whose ads are all ready.' The description reinforces the ready-draft condition but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: sending a ready draft to its platform, and it names the campaign, ad set and ads that are created. It also distinguishes this tool's paused creation behavior from the spending step in go_live_ad_campaign.

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 states the precondition clearly as a 'ready draft' and routes spending behavior to go_live_ad_campaign. It also tells the agent to poll get_ad_campaign after sending, though it does not explicitly contrast this with other campaign-creation siblings.

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