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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, identifying this as a non-destructive write operation. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations by naming the required credential and its scope (SULVO_API_KEY with inventory:write). It does not, however, describe idempotency, error behavior, or what happens to duplicate units.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the auth requirement but omits return value expectations, response shape, and the distinction from sibling creation tools. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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 67%: domain and adTypes carry schema descriptions and constraints, while outputFormat has none. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the moderate coverage.

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 ('Create Sulvo auto-sticky ad units'), which is clear enough on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling creation tools like create_sulvo_ad_unit or create_sulvo_interstitial_units, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which creation tool applies to a given request.

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 phrase 'for an approved publisher' implies a precondition (the publisher must already be approved), which is useful context. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against the sibling ad-unit creation tools, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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