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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the burden. The description adds that execution is validate-only and that primary_for_goal defaults to false, which is useful, but it says nothing about what the prepared artifact is, its lifetime, or how it is consumed next.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient as written, though the extreme brevity for a 12-parameter tool borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 12-parameter, 8%-covered, no-output-schema creation tool, the description omits the confirm follow-up, the prepared-plan identifier, prerequisites such as connection_context, and almost all parameter meaning. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently.

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 only 8% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the load, yet it only clarifies two things: the type is WEBPAGE and primary_for_goal defaults to false. Ten parameters (name, category, counting_type, default_value, currency, lookback windows, connection_context, always_use_default_value) remain unexplained anywhere.

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 (prepare) plus resource and type scope ('one WEBPAGE conversion action'), so it is distinguishable from sibling create/update/remove conversion-action tools. It does not explicitly name the confirm counterpart, but the prepare/confirm naming pattern makes intent legible.

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?

'Runs validate-only' implies this is a dry-run staging step ahead of google_ads_conversion_action_create_confirm, which is actionable context. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given, so usage must be inferred from the naming convention.

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