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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), closed-world, and destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the submission is ownership-only and carries no tags, but says nothing about reversibility, downstream Google-side processing, or failure modes for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the scoping constraint immediately after. No filler, though the 'Retag-after-approval journeys' label is jargon that costs a little clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so return expectations need not be explained. However, for a destructive external-approval action the description omits prerequisites (e.g., prior ownership verification, active activation workspace) and never reconciles the 'expectedVersion' claim with a schema that only requires workspaceId.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally, warranting the baseline 3. The description adds the undocumented requirement of 'expectedVersion,' which is not present in the schema's required list — useful but also potentially confusing, and it leaves workspaceId/outputFormat/idempotencyKey entirely 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?

States a specific verb (submit) and resource (site for Google approval) with a scope qualifier: 'ads.txt ownership only, no tags.' Distinguishable from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearest relative, submit_sulvo_activation_workspace. The 'Retag-after-approval journeys' prefix adds context rather than noise.

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 'Retag-after-approval journeys' framing implies when this tool fits, but no explicit when-not condition or named alternative is given. An agent must infer that this is not the path for tag-bearing submissions or first-time activation. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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