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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: new advertisements start as UNPUBLISH, customers may be identified by id or uuid, and tags are lowercased, de-duplicated, and capped at 20. It does not cover authorization, side effects, or response 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 compact and front-loads the core action and initial status. The parameter notes are terse and there is no filler, though the structure could more clearly group required versus optional fields.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It gives initial status and a few field formats, but does not explain most parameters or enough of the required fields to let an agent call this 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 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains customer_id/customer_uuid, the FAQ entry shape, and tag constraints, but leaves most parameters undocumented, including required advertisement_title and advertisement_sort plus note, group, poster, country, options, language, and start/end datetime.

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, 'Create', and resource, 'advertisement', and adds the important initial status UNPUBLISH. It is distinguishable from edit_advertisement and publish_advertisement by implication, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative, but 'starts as UNPUBLISH' implies that publishing is a separate step likely handled by publish_advertisement. It does not clarify when to choose this over edit_advertisement or broader campaign creation tools.

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