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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior detail beyond that: the full state machine (pending, running, done, failed, cancelled, expired) and the presence of a result message, which matters for polling decisions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and origin tools, with the state enumeration placed where it is immediately scannable. No filler and no repetition of the title or parameters.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is returned (a state plus result message) and where the ID comes from. Only edge behavior — unknown/expired IDs, whether polling is expected — is left unstated.

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 0%, so the schema gives only type and minimum for action_id. The description compensates partially by defining what the ID refers to — the confirmation card returned by the two campaign tools — but says nothing about ID format, validity, or behavior when the ID is stale or from another source.

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 resource (a confirmation card's status) and enumerates the exact outcome states plus the result message. It also names the two tools that produce the action_id (resume_campaign, change_campaign_budget), which separates it cleanly from siblings like get_ads_status or get_stats.

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 clause 'created by resume_campaign or change_campaign_budget' implicitly tells the agent to call this after one of those write operations, which is the primary when-to-use signal. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating what to do when the ID is unknown, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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