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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds genuinely new context: it produces a PREVIEW and returns a plan_id rather than applying changes, plus the platform constraint that business names link at campaign or account level only. It does not state how a draft is later confirmed/applied, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded: the PREVIEW-only nature is stated in the very first clause, and the draft/scope/link facts follow in order of importance. The trailing 'Google Ads API:' documentation URL is low-value filler that keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 an output schema present, return details needn't be spelled out, and the description covers the essential unknowns for a draft-mutation tool: scope rules, level restrictions, and that the result is a preview with a plan_id. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: the interaction rule between scope and campaign_id for account-wide linking, which the schema documents only separately per parameter. The business_name length limit and customer_id defaulting are left to the schema.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Draft a business name asset'), then explains the mechanics: creating a text asset linked as the business name shown with ads. This distinguishes it from the many other draft_* asset tools (draft_callouts, draft_sitelinks, draft_image_assets) without requiring a schema read.

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 clear conditional guidance — campaign-level via campaign_id, account-wide requires scope="account" and no campaign_id, and notes Google only permits attachment at those two levels. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for other asset types or explaining the follow-up apply step, so not a full 5.

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