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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the asset collects user information from the ad and gives character limits, but says nothing about permissions, verification requirements for lead forms, or irreversibility of the creation.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence and a one-line behavioral gloss before the Args block. The Args list is long but every line earns its place given 0% schema coverage; the Returns block is mildly redundant since an output schema exists.

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 mutation tool with 7 required fields and no schema descriptions, the description supplies everything needed to construct a valid call: every parameter, character limits, enum vocabularies, and which two are optional. An output schema already documents the return value, so the brief Returns line is sufficient.

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 the full burden and it does: all nine parameters are explained, including a note that customer_id takes numbers only with no hyphens, max lengths for headline (30) and description (200), and the full allowed-value lists for call_to_action_type (14 values) and fields (13 values) that the schema does not encode as enums.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a lead form asset') and adds a clarifying sentence about what the asset is for ('collect user information directly from the ad'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the many other create_*_asset siblings through the unique resource name, but never explicitly contrasts with e.g. create_call_asset or create_text_asset.

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 phrase 'can be linked to campaigns or ad groups' implies the follow-up step (link_asset_to_campaign / link_asset_to_ad_group), which is useful implied usage. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative asset types, no prerequisites, and no note on account/permission requirements before creation.

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