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

Annotations already declare the non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent profile. The description adds genuinely non-derivable traits: the ad is 'Created paused' and the text must be shown to the human before confirming. It does not disclose rate limits or return behavior, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraints. Every clause carries information (limits, cardinality, human-review step, paused state) with zero 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?

With no output schema and a create mutation, the definition covers the key content requirements and the paused-state side effect well. It omits the meaning of 'confirm' and the path fields, which leaves a moderate gap for an 8-parameter 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 coverage is only 13%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains the headlines (3-15, max 30 chars) and descriptions (2-4, max 90 chars) parameters, but customer_id, ad_group_id, path1, path2 and especially the 'confirm' flag are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Write a responsive search ad'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like ads_create_ad_group and ads_create_campaign. It also enumerates the core constraints. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 implies the workflow ('show it to the human verbatim before confirming') but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as ads_create_ad_group or ads_add_keywords. No prerequisites or when-not conditions are given, so usage must be inferred.

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