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

The description adds meaningful operational detail beyond the annotations: the amount is daily and denominated in the account currency, with a concrete example (50 = R$50/day). It also discloses bulk support through customer_ids. These details help the agent anticipate behavior and multiple-account workflows.

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?

The description is short but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential constraints and bulk support in a compact format. Both sentences contribute meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description still provides key contextual points: creation purpose, required-before-campaign relationship, amount interpretation, and bulk execution. It does not explain all parameters or cover return behavior, but the main agent guidance is sufficient for a straightforward create 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify amount semantics (daily, account currency) and mentions customer_ids for batched execution, but several parameters—name, account, customer_id, delivery_method—receive no additional meaning. The schema's names provide some hint, but not full compensation for the lack of descriptions.

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?

The description starts with 'Create a campaign_budget', using a specific verb plus resource. It also places the tool in context by noting it is required to create a campaign, which distinguishes it from sibling update/list tools like google_ads_campaign_update_status and google_ads_campaign_update_budget.

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 explicitly notes this tool is required before creating a campaign, giving clear timing context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling set makes the role of this creation tool reasonably evident.

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