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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that credits are spent once, never charged twice, and that one page exists per ad version. It also discloses the asynchronous operation pattern: follow the returned opId until it settles, then preview.

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 four tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and cost, then states the approval prerequisite, idempotency guarantee, and follow-up step in a logical order.

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 9-parameter, nested-object, asynchronous mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical missing context: cost, approval gate, idempotency, opId follow-up, and next preview step. An agent can call this correctly without opening additional documentation.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds useful semantics around the identity parameters by tying repetition and charging to the ad version, and it reinforces that credits and pricingVersion come from an approved quote.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it writes a page matching the ad, saves it on the owner's website, and keeps it out of the menu and unlinked. That level of scope detail distinguishes it from siblings such as quote, preview, attach, and publish.

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 clearly gates invocation on owner approval of a quote and tells the caller to repeat safely because the operation is idempotent. It also points to the next step, following the returned opId and then previewing, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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