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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that units are tagless and that SULVO_API_KEY with the inventory:write scope is required in the server environment, though it does not cover return behavior or any post-creation effects.

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 tightly written sentences lead with the core action and immediately follow with the key prerequisite. There is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations, and every clause carries useful information.

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?

The description covers the critical auth requirement and publisher approval prerequisite, and annotations address the safety profile. However, with no output schema and no description of the outputFormat parameter or the expected return structure, it is only minimally complete for a create operation.

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 67%: domain and adTypes are documented in the schema, but outputFormat has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Create), resource (Sulvo interstitial ad units), and distinguishing qualifier (tagless) for an approved publisher. It differentiates from generic sibling create_sulvo_ad_unit and create_sulvo_auto_sticky_units by naming the exact unit type, though it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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 the prerequisite context of an approved publisher and the required API key scope, which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling creation tools such as create_sulvo_ad_unit or create_sulvo_auto_sticky_units, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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