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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that campaigns are created in PAUSED state and that campaign_name must be unique, which are real behavioral traits. It omits what happens on a name collision, required permissions, and what is returned, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the critical scoping fact (default PAUSED) front-loaded right after the action. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 7-parameter creation mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the two most important behavioral facts but says nothing about the result (e.g., returned campaign ID) or error/permission conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults for app_adam_id, budget, currency, and status. The description adds nothing beyond re-stating the campaign_name requirement, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (Search Results campaign), plus the default state and the uniqueness constraint on the name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like duplicate_campaign or update_ad_group, so an agent must infer the boundaries, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus duplicate_campaign or create_ad_group, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a campaign must not already exist). Only the 'default PAUSED' note hints at usage context, which is implied rather than guidance.

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