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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the return payload (created link resource names) but omits what an agent most needs for a non-idempotent create: that re-running with the same asset creates duplicate links, and whether this requires admin-level access.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose and scope, and the Args/Returns structure is scannable. The long field_type enumeration is long but each item earns its place since the schema lacks an enum; the trailing revision hash is noise.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes the return value, which is enough for an agent to call it. The main missing pieces for a non-idempotent create are duplicate-handling behavior and the source of asset resource names, both of which are non-trivial in this ecosystem.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it specifies customer_id as numbers-only with no hyphens, describes asset_resource_names as a list of resource names, and enumerates all ten valid field_type values — information absent from the schema (field_type is a bare string with no enum). It stops short of saying where resource names come from.

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 ('Links assets at the customer (account) level') plus the scope effect ('apply to all campaigns'). That scope clause cleanly separates it from the sibling tools link_asset_to_campaign and link_asset_to_ad_group without needing to name them.

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 'applies to all campaigns' clause gives an implicit routing cue, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over link_asset_to_campaign / link_asset_to_ad_group, nor does it state prerequisites (assets must already exist via the create_*_asset tools). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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