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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that nothing changes in Apple Ads until the founder approves, which is the key safety behavior for a proposal tool. However, it omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, and what the approval flow returns or triggers, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core sentences are front-loaded and reasonably tight, but the trailing tags 'Growth. Free.' add no actionable meaning for an agent and read as leftover categorization. The parenthetical source list is dense and could be cleaner.

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 proposal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the source, the approval gate, and the per-item required fields, which is the essentials. It still leaves open what happens after approval and how to interpret undocumented fields (matchType, bid), so it is adequate but not complete.

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% (only 'bid' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for kind (keyword vs negative), campaignId, adGroupId, and why ('why' is even a required field). It says nothing about bid semantics, matchType EXACT/BROAD, or the text constraints, so coverage remains partial.

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 ('Propose new exact keywords... or negatives') and clarifies the workflow purpose: founder approval. It references sibling tools (keyword_research as a source, ads_review for campaign/ad group), which helps an agent place it. Slightly muddied by the phrase 'exact keywords' when the schema also permits BROAD match type.

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?

Gives clear routing: pull candidate keywords from keyword_research, the App Store keyword field, or reviews, and get campaign/ad group context from ads_review. It implies this is the pre-approval step ('Nothing changes... before the founder approves'). No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is unambiguous.

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