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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new Conversion Action') and includes a brief, relevant example. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, provide usage context, or explain return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions and enums for all parameters. Since schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional meaning or context for the parameters.

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 the action ('Create a new Conversion Action') and provides examples of what might be created ('e.g., for website, phone calls'), which gives a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_conversion_actions' or 'update_campaign_budget', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 alternatives like 'get_conversion_actions' for reading existing actions or other creation tools like 'create_responsive_display_ad'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a campaign or account setup, and doesn't mention exclusions or typical use cases.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Ad Controls (e.g., enable video creation)' which hints at some configuration options, but doesn't describe what happens when the ad is created, whether it's immediately active, what permissions are required, or what the expected response format is. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and no complex behavioral nuances to explain. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context about when to use this tool.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the response contains, or any error conditions. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameter understanding, but behavioral aspects remain underspecified given this is a write operation in an advertising context.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'Ad Controls (e.g., enable video creation)' which loosely maps to the 'enable_video_creation' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('Responsive Display Ad'), and specifies the type of ad being created. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on responsive display ads rather than campaigns, conversions, or reports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential ad creation tools that might exist.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing ad group), when responsive display ads are appropriate, or what alternatives might exist among the sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'enable/resume' implies a state change, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., budget resumption), or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with just four words, front-loading the essential action and target. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or response format. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'campaign_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('enable/resume') and target resource ('a paused campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'pause_campaign' beyond the obvious opposite action, missing an opportunity to clarify their relationship.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the campaign must be paused), when not to use it (e.g., for active campaigns), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'pause_campaign' or 'update_campaign_budget'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Export') but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's a read-only operation, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., file download vs. inline data). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of an export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, output handling, or error conditions, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in context with sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('format' and 'days') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the context of 'days' (e.g., historical data range) or format implications.

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 the verb ('Export') and resource ('campaign data'), specifying the output formats (CSV or JSON). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaigns' or 'get_performance_summary' that might also retrieve campaign data but in different formats or contexts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for bulk data export compared to real-time queries from siblings like 'get_campaign_details', or mention prerequisites such as campaign availability.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information') and specifies the target ('about a specific campaign'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, the return format, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for agent usage lacks necessary behavioral and output details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('campaign_id' and 'days' with a default). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'detailed information' includes or how 'days' affects the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific campaign'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaigns' (which likely lists campaigns) or 'get_performance_summary' (which might provide aggregated metrics), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a campaign ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_campaigns' for listing or 'get_performance_summary' for aggregated data, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Fetch' (implying read-only) but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data-fetching tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with overlapping purposes, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'performance data' includes, how results are structured, or how this differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not providing additional value.

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 the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Google Ads campaign performance data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_campaign_details' or 'get_performance_summary', which appear to serve related but potentially different functions.

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 alternatives like 'get_campaign_details' or 'get_performance_summary'. It mentions 'performance data' but doesn't clarify scope, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

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 states 'List all' but doesn't reveal any traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or what 'all' entails (e.g., active only, includes archived). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with account data.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of listing account-level data, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in context with siblings like 'create_conversion_action'.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none. A baseline of 4 is given as it meets the requirement without extra information.

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 the action ('List all') and resource ('Conversion Actions for the account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaigns' or 'get_campaign_details' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for initial setup, monitoring, or comparison with other listing tools like 'get_campaigns'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get overall account performance summary', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or whether it aggregates data across campaigns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 'Get overall account performance summary' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Get high-level account metrics') to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of performance metrics and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary includes (e.g., key performance indicators, time-series data), how results are formatted, or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns detailed data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing details on 'days' (number of days to look back, default 30). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, such as clarifying the time range's impact on the summary. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Get overall account performance summary' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('account performance summary'), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes 'performance summary' (e.g., metrics like clicks, conversions, revenue). It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_campaign_details' or 'get_top_performers', which might also provide performance-related data, leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'get_campaigns', 'get_campaign_details', and 'get_top_performers' that might offer overlapping or more specific performance insights, there's no indication of context (e.g., use this for high-level overviews, use others for campaign-specific details). This lack of differentiation hinders effective tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get top performing campaigns') and includes the key constraint ('by specified metric'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (ranking campaigns by metrics with three parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'top performing' means (e.g., highest values of the metric), how ties are handled, or what the return structure includes (e.g., campaign IDs, metric values). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (metric, limit, days), including an enum for 'metric' and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'metric' is used for ranking. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('top performing campaigns'), specifying the ranking criterion ('by specified metric'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_campaigns' (general listing) and 'get_performance_summary' (aggregate metrics) by focusing on ranking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_campaign_details' (individual campaign data) in the description text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_campaigns' (for unfiltered lists) or 'get_performance_summary' (for overall metrics), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('pause') but doesn't explain effects (e.g., if pausing is reversible, impacts on performance, or permissions required). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond the basic action.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'campaign_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 the verb ('pause') and resource ('a specific campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'enable_campaign' or 'update_campaign_budget' beyond the basic action, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enable_campaign' or other campaign management tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of action.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, it fails to mention critical aspects like permission requirements, whether budget changes are immediate or scheduled, rate limits, or what happens if the budget exceeds account limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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 perfectly concise at just 7 words, front-loading the essential action and resource without any wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it immediately scannable and understandable while avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

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 budget mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (success confirmation? error messages?), doesn't mention side effects or constraints, and provides minimal guidance for proper usage. Given the complexity of financial operations and lack of structured safety signals, more context would be valuable.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured data - it mentions 'daily budget' which aligns with 'budget_euros' but doesn't provide additional context about format, constraints, or business rules. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('update') and resource ('daily budget for a campaign'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'enable_campaign' or 'pause_campaign' that also modify campaign states, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific budget update tool.

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 alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites (e.g., campaign must be active), exclusions (e.g., cannot update paused campaigns), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_campaign_details' for checking current budget first. This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate tool selection.

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