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

Annotations declare a non-read-only but non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds the key behavioral fact beyond annotations: nothing changes in Apple Ads until the founder approves, so the tool stages a proposal rather than mutating live campaigns. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false. It does not describe rate limits or return behavior.

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?

Purpose and constraints are front-loaded and the prose is efficient. The trailing 'Growth. Free.' fragments are ambiguous and add little, slightly diminishing tightness.

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 staging/proposal tool with no output schema, the definition covers what gets proposed, the required per-item fields, the approval gate, and where IDs come from. Reasonably complete, though bid/matchType semantics and the approval-result flow are left to the schema and caller.

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% at the top level, so the description must compensate. It explains that each item needs its campaign, ad group, and why, which covers several required fields (campaignId, why) and the source of adGroupId, but omits detail on kind, text, bid, and matchType.

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 (propose) and resource (new exact keywords or negatives) plus their sources, and frames the outcome (founder approval in the results app). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ads_review and keyword_research.

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?

Clearly identifies where inputs come from (keyword_research, the App Store keyword field, reviews) and that campaign/ad group values come from ads_review. It gives strong context of when to use it, but states no explicit when-not or alternative to prefer.

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