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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: default status PAUSED, bulk execution support via ad_group_ids/customer_ids, and validation limits for headlines/descriptions. Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The added defaults and bulk behavior are useful and not contradictory.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and constraints, the second covers the default status, and the third describes bulk support. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most critical creation requirements (headline/description limits, final_urls, default status, bulk mode) but omits details on optional parameters like path1/path2, account, and customer_id. It also does not mention success/error behavior. Adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for full parameter understanding.

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 explain headlines (3-15, <=30 chars), descriptions (2-4, <=90 chars), final_urls required, and default status PAUSED. However, it leaves several parameters unexplained (path1, path2, account, customer_id) and only hints at ad_group_ids/customer_ids via the bulk support line. This is partial compensation for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a Responsive Search Ad (RSA)') and the target resource ('inside an ad group'). It includes specific constraints (headline/description counts and character limits) that distinguish it from other sibling creation tools like ad_group_create or campaign_create. The verb+resource+scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to create an RSA within an ad group, with required fields and default behavior ('Default status PAUSED'). It also mentions bulk support for batched execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling set makes the context clear enough.

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