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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the result is a prepared but paused keyword, but doesn't clarify that the keyword is not yet created (only prepared), what the side effects are (e.g., it may stage data but not persist), or whether the confirm step is required. This is a mutation path but the description doesn't explain the preparation semantics.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no fluff or repetition. It's minimal but clear.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully inadequate. It doesn't explain the prepare/confirm workflow, the meaning of key parameters, or what happens after calling this tool. An agent cannot call this correctly without external knowledge.

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?

With schema description coverage of only 20% (only customer_id has a description), the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain any parameters. It doesn't describe 'text' (the keyword text), 'negative' (whether it's a negative keyword), or 'match_type' (exact/phrase/broad). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Prepare creating a paused keyword criterion' clearly indicates the action (prepare creation) and the resource (keyword criterion), and specifies that the keyword will be paused. This distinguishes it from the confirm counterpart (google_ads_keyword_create_confirm) which presumably finalizes the creation, so the prep/confirm distinction is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is a two-step process requiring a subsequent confirm step, nor does it explain the workflow context (e.g., you must call prepare before confirm). Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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