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

With only a generic annotation set (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description carries the real behavioral detail: campaigns are created PAUSED, activate=true starts immediate spend, budget safety caps reject mistyped amounts rather than overspending, and confirm=false returns a dry run. This is exactly the beyond-annotations context the dimension rewards.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each front-loaded with its key constraint (budget units, then objective values, then the paused/activate warning, then the dry-run note). No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description adds the dry-run response behavior anyway. All the operational facts an agent needs to avoid accidental spend and to correctly sequence creation are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: budgets are in account currency (not micros) with conversion handled internally, objective enumeration is spelled out as clicks | reach | conversions (the schema declares no enums), and activate/confirm semantics are explained. It does not clarify 'name' or the 'account' parameter, leaving two of seven undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Creates a ChatGPT Ads campaign') and scopes it to the connected ChatGPT Ads account. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling creation tools by naming create_chatgpt_ads_ad_group and create_chatgpt_ads_ad as the follow-on pieces required under the campaign.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions for the risky parameter ('pass activate=true only when you mean spending to start the moment it is created'), states the default paused behavior, and tells the agent the campaign alone never serves so it must be followed by an ad group and ad. Also names the dry-run path via confirm=false.

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