create_responsive_search_ad

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Google will automatically test combinations of headlines and descriptions.' It does not elaborate on side effects, response behavior, or failure modes, but given annotation coverage the description provides reasonable added value.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, a useful behavioral note, and a clean argument list. Every sentence and line adds necessary constraint information without redundancy or 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 tool with 8 parameters, all parameter semantics are covered, including defaults and dependencies. There is no output schema and the description does not mention return values, which is a minor gap, but the information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present and complete.

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%, yet the description thoroughly documents every parameter: customer_id, ad_group_id with a Search campaign constraint, headlines count/length limits, descriptions count/length limits, final_urls requirement, path constraints including the path2-requires-path1 rule, and status enum values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Create a Responsive Search Ad') and clearly scopes it to 'Search campaigns.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_responsive_display_ad and create_video_ad, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear context by specifying that the ad group 'must be in a Search campaign,' which implies this tool is for Search campaign ad creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage differentiation.

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