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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Prepare enabling' implies a mutation or state change, but the description does not disclose what the preparation does (e.g., validate, stage, create a task), whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. The tool name suggests a two-phase commit pattern, but the description does not explain the behavior.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the verb and resource but omits essential workflow and parameter context. A single sentence can earn a higher score only if it packs in the necessary distinctions and usage guidance.

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's complexity (a prepare step in a two-phase enable flow, with 4 parameters and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the prepare/confirm workflow, the meaning of entity_level, the relationship between entity_id and ad_group_id, or what the agent should do after calling this tool. The sibling list shows a clear pattern, but the description itself leaves too much to inference.

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 25% (only customer_id has a description). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The entity_level parameter is undocumented and has no enum, so an agent cannot know what values are valid (e.g., 'campaign', 'ad_group', 'ad'). The entity_id and ad_group_id parameters are ambiguous: it is unclear when each is required or how they relate to entity_level.

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 states a specific verb ('Prepare enabling') and resource ('a campaign, ad group, or ad'), which is clear enough to identify the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this from the many sibling prepare/confirm pairs, and the phrase 'Prepare enabling' is somewhat vague about what preparation entails.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes google_ads_status_enable_confirm and google_ads_status_pause_prepare, but the description does not mention that this tool is the first step in a two-step enable flow or that it should be followed by the confirm tool. An agent would have to infer the workflow 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.