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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds material context the annotations cannot convey: the call spends real money from a prepaid wallet, the service fee is charged on top of the stated budget, and user confirmation is mandatory — all valuable for a spend-incurring 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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste. The money-spending warning is front-loaded in caps right after the one-line purpose, so the most consequential fact is read first, and the prerequisite tool is named last.

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 tool with eight parameters, nested targeting objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (recommendations → confirm budget → boost) and the spend risk. It leaves the managed-vs-own_account fee distinction and returning campaign details to the schema/annotations, which is acceptable but slightly under-explained.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including budgetCents, mode, durationDays and the nested targeting fields. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond reiterating the budget-and-fee idea, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (boost) plus resource (a published post as a paid ad), and it distinguishes itself from sibling ad tools such as create_chatgpt_ad and google_ads_create_search_campaign by scoping to boosting an existing published post. An agent knows immediately what this does and on what object.

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 explicit preconditions: confirm the budget with the user before calling, and call get_boost_recommendations first for suggested settings. It routes to a sibling tool by name, which is strong, but it doesn't contrast with other ad-creation tools or explain when the managed vs own_account path applies.

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