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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: every ad is pre-validated against Google, validation_failed means nothing is created, the default status is PAUSED for safety, validate_only performs a dry run, and repeated policy violations can suspend the ad account. These are exactly the high-stakes operational details an agent needs before invoking a creation tool.

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 the core action and then organized around Google constraints, validation behavior, safety defaults, and policy risks. The compliance list is somewhat lengthy, but it earns its place given the account-suspension risk and the tool's high-stakes creation behavior.

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 description is strong on validation, policy risk, safety defaults, and the main ad copy fields, and the output schema means return values need not be explained. However, with 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves meaningful gaps around required ad_group_id and optional path1/path2 semantics.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It supplies critical constraints for headlines, descriptions, final_urls, status, validate_only, and workspace, including counts, character limits, allowed status values, default PAUSED, and the optional workspace case. It still omits semantics for ad_group_id, path1, and path2.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Responsive Search Ad anlegen.' It makes clear this creates a Google Responsive Search Ad, which distinguishes it from update/remove/list tools and from non-Google ad creation siblings. The Google-specific requirements further reinforce the exact resource being created.

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 description implies when to use the tool through its creation constraints, default PAUSED status, and validate_only dry-run mode. However, it does not explicitly route the agent against alternatives such as ads_update_ad, ads_replace_ad, or ads_create_text_assets, nor does it 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.