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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the server never applies the pause, the CSV is imported into Google Ads Editor by the caller, and the campaign-level choice is justified because a mis-pause is visible and easy to undo. It also flags an 'Unlimited plan' gate, though rate/limit mechanics are not spelled out.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying useful information: plan gate, output type, scope constraint, and manual application step. The 'Unlimited plan' opener is slightly abrupt but front-loads an important eligibility constraint.

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, and the description compensates by explaining that the return value is a CSV meant for Google Ads Editor and that the server does not mutate anything. What remains missing is minor: threshold details behind 'spent without converting' and any pagination/row-limit behavior.

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 100%, so period, customer_id and login_customer_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (such as how period interacts with the wasted-spend threshold), so the baseline 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 concrete output and effect: returns a CSV that pauses campaigns which spent without converting. The scope is tightened with 'campaigns only, never single ads'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent find_wasted_spend or negative_keywords_file tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Clearly says this is for campaigns that spent without converting and that the unit is campaigns only, never ads, and that the file must be applied manually from Editor. It gives no explicit exclusion against sibling tools like find_wasted_spend, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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