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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses atomic execution ('entweder alle oder keines'), the 1000-ID limit, duplicate handling, cross-ad-group behavior, and side benefits around quota and journal entries. These are meaningful operational traits that the annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded with purpose and alternative, then moves into parameter guidance. It is efficient overall, though the quota/journal rationale is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary for tool selection.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers all behavioral and parameter details an agent needs. The only minor gap is that ad_group_id is inferred rather than explicitly defined, but the surrounding text makes its role unambiguous.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully: it explains criterion_ids constraints and source (ads_list_keywords, same ad group), status values (ENABLED/PAUSED), and workspace optionality. ad_group_id is not defined in a standalone sentence but is clearly implied by the ad-group scoping throughout.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Mehrere Keywords einer Ad Group aktivieren oder pausieren') and immediately distinguishes the tool from per-keyword updates by noting it is one API call instead of N. The scope and the sibling it replaces are both clear without opening the schema.

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 explicitly names when to use this tool: after ads_bulk_add_keywords, and instead of ads_update_keyword_status per keyword. It also states the multi-ad-group case ('je Ad Group einmal aufrufen'), so the agent knows both the primary use case and the boundary condition.

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