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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it explicitly says it never re-submits the Google write (clarifying the destructiveHint=true applies to the local receipt update, not a remote mutation) and discloses the ambiguous-readback escalation path. It stops short of describing what state the receipt update overwrites.

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 core action front-loaded and the no-resubmit guarantee immediately after. No filler.

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 mutation-adjacent tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description covers the flow and failure path but omits prerequisites (when a mutation counts as confirmed/uncertain) and any indication of what a reconcile result looks like.

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 only 33% — customer_id is documented but draft_id and connection_context are not. The description refers loosely to 'one exact Google resource' but does not explain what draft_id identifies, where it comes from, or the role of connection_context, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action chain: check one exact Google resource for a mutation and update its private lifecycle receipt. It is clearly distinguishable from the prepare/confirm siblings and from google_ads_mutation_receipt_get, though jargon like 'lifecycle receipt' leaves the resource type somewhat abstract.

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 condition for use is implied ('for a confirmed or uncertain native mutation'), and the operator-review fallback is stated, but no sibling is named explicitly (e.g. mutation_receipt_get, or the *_confirm tools) nor is a when-not-to-use condition given.

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