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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Prepare pausing,' which gives no information about whether the tool mutates state, what it returns, whether it requires confirmation, or any side effects. There is no mention of permissions or reversibility. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 concise—one sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified, providing only a bare purpose statement. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary details. It earns a moderate score for being concise but not for completeness.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'prepare' (e.g., validation, staging), how to map entity_level to campaign/ad group/ad, what the output looks like, or how it connects to the confirm step. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.

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?

The description adds no information about the parameters. The schema has only customer_id described (25% coverage), and the description does not clarify entity_level or entity_id, nor does it explain the optional ad_group_id. The tool is for pausing campaign, ad group, or ad, so entity_level likely indicates which, but this is not stated. The agent is left to guess parameter meanings.

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 clear action: 'Prepare pausing a campaign, ad group, or ad.' It names the specific verb (prepare) and the resource (campaign, ad group, or ad), and the 'pausing' distinguishes it from enable or other status tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the confirm counterpart, but the name and description are sufficient to understand its role.

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 its siblings. It does not mention that this is the preparation step before google_ads_status_pause_confirm, nor does it specify when to use pause versus enable. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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