build_search_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses that everything is created PAUSED, explains the flexible keywords format (plain strings or objects with text/match_type/bid), and specifies ad length requirements (3-15 headlines, 2-4 descriptions). It does not mention transactionality or failure behavior, but the disclosed constraints are genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It covers scope, paused state, keyword flexibility, and ad constraints without fluff.

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 composite tool with 10 parameters and multiple entities, the description provides a clear overall scope and the most critical constraints. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need explanation. It misses minor clarifications such as how the top-level match_type interacts with object-level match_type values, but overall it gives the agent enough operational context to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds essential semantics for the most ambiguous parameter, keywords ('may be plain strings or {text, match_type, bid} objects'), and clarifies headlines/descriptions length constraints. However, it does not explain other parameters like match_type vs keyword-level match_type, cpc_bid, ad_group_name, or daily_budget behavior, leaving several gaps.

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 clearly states 'Create a full Search campaign in one call' and enumerates the exact components (campaign + ad group + keywords + Responsive Search Ad), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_campaign or add_keywords. The verb 'Create' plus resource 'full Search campaign' is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this is a bundling convenience versus calling the individual sibling tools separately, and 'Everything is created PAUSED' gives an important conditional. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_campaign/add_keywords combinations or mention exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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