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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the confirm/requestId recovery flow and a status condition, but the 'Spending/deletion' framing is clearly boilerplate for a labeling operation and never discloses that up to 1000 entities per type can be mutated in a single call or that repeats are non-idempotent.

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, but a third of it is low-signal boilerplate ('Soclo Ads:' prefix, spending/deletion template, and a 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' pointer) rather than front-loading what actually gets labeled.

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 10 parameters, nested payload objects and no output schema, the description should clarify scope, entity types, and how to check the outcome. It mentions 'status is active' without pointing to soclo_ads_operation_status for polling, and the budget/currency parameters go unexplained.

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 60% and the description explains no parameters. It says nothing about labelId in `parameters`, the payload arrays, or why currency/budget fields (expectedCurrency, expectedBudgetAmount, expectedBudgetType) appear in a label-attachment request, leaving a significant ambiguity unresolved.

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 verb+resource ('Attach a Google Ads label') is clear, but the description never says what the label is attached to. The schema reveals adIds, adSetIds, keywordIds and campaignIds, yet the description leaves the agent to discover that this is a bulk labeling operation across four entity types. It also does not distinguish it from soclo_ads_update_ad_label or soclo_ads_detach_ad_label.

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 only procedural guidance is a generic 'preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId' boilerplate about spending/deletion, which does not tell the agent when to use label attachment versus updating or detaching a label. No preconditions about needing an existing labelId from create/list are stated.

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