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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior: the output is actionable steps per channel, the daily budget is already split, and Nova never touches the ad account; however, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth needs, rate limits, or whether any side effects occur.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then the account-access caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 no annotations or output schema and only 33% schema coverage, the description does explain the guide's content and a usage condition. However, it omits the meaning of agent_id and leads_target, so an agent lacks full parameter context.

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 33%, with only the channel parameter described in the schema. The description says 'per channel' but adds no meaning for agent_id or leads_target, leaving the required agent_id and optional leads_target semantics to guesswork.

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 specifies the returned artifact: an ad plan rendered as per-channel tap steps in the owner's words with the budget already divided. That is clear, but it never names the sibling get_ad_plan or explicitly states how this differs from it, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 gives an explicit selection condition: use this when the owner wants to run the ads themselves. It also contrasts with Nova handling the ad account, but it does not explicitly mention get_ad_plan as the alternative or state exclusions.

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