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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds context the annotations cannot: a mandatory preview step, owner approval via confirm:true, requestId reuse for confirmation/recovery, and that the claim is only live once status is active. This is meaningful workflow context beyond the structured hints, though it does not explain what exactly gets destroyed or how it affects existing sitelinks.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. But the fragments are telegraphic ('Claim live only when status is active' is ambiguous about what 'claim' means), and the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' self-reference is opaque filler that does not help an agent act.

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?

The approval/preview workflow is covered, which is the critical safety piece for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation. Missing for a 10-param nested tool with no output schema: whether sitelinks are appended or replace the account's set, how the expected* budget/currency fields relate to sitelinks at all, and where the preview originates.

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 60%, so the schema already documents confirm, requestId, adAccountId, and the expected* fields. The description mentions confirm and requestId but only restates what the schema properties already say, and adds nothing about the nested payload.sitelinks shape (text, linkUrl, description lengths, maxItems 20) or the purpose of the expectedCurrency/expectedBudget* fields for a sitelink operation.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Add account sitelinks'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the very similar siblings soclo_ads_update_account_sitelinks, soclo_ads_remove_account_sitelink, and soclo_ads_add_account_callouts/structured_snippets.

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 a procedural rule ('preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId'), which is real usage guidance for the approval path. But it never says when to choose this tool over update_account_sitelinks or remove_account_sitelink, and it does not name the preview tool to call first.

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