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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the campaign is always created PAUSED, it creates a budget, bidding, locations, and one product ad group with a default product bid, and it requires a linked Merchant Center feed. It does not mention the dry_run validation option or permission requirements, but the paused-state disclosure is a meaningful behavioral fact not present in the annotations.

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 description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by key behavioral constraints and a sibling pointer. Every sentence adds relevant information without repetition or filler.

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 an 11-parameter campaign-creation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose, paused state, and product-group handoff. However, it omits important operational details such as dry_run validation, account selection, and target_roas semantics, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 only 36%, so the description carries more burden. It adds useful meaning for bidding options ('manual CPC, max clicks or tROAS'), default product bid, budget, locations, and the Merchant Center feed, but it leaves several parameters unexplained, including account, dry_run, priority, feed_label, and target_roas.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Standard Shopping campaign.' It scopes the tool to a linked Merchant Center feed and distinguishes it from sibling campaign-creation tools by naming the campaign type. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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?

The description gives clear context for use: creating a Standard Shopping campaign for a linked Merchant Center feed, always paused, with product splitting delegated to google_ads_product_groups. It does not explicitly compare this tool to google_ads_create_search_campaign, google_ads_create_pmax_campaign, or other campaign types, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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