draft_responsive_search_ad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses critical behaviors: mandatory claim verification against the website, enforcement of a blocklist on all ad components, and the lack of a per-ad paused state on creation (requiring parent ad group pausing for isolation). It also notes that new ads serve post-approval. This is substantial transparency, though it does not cover all edge cases or error handling.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and constraints before additional policy and behavioral notes. The final 'Live-verified' line is an audit trail that is extra and not essential for usage, slightly reducing conciseness, but the overall structure is effective.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key constraints and behaviors but omits explanations for most parameters, prerequisites, or return value expectations. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer or test to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It adds constraints on headlines (3-15) and descriptions (2-4), which adds meaning to those array parameters. However, it does not explain path1, path2, final_url, ad_group_id, or campaign_id beyond their existence, leaving most parameters undocumented. The partial coverage is insufficient for full compensation.

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 tool drafts a Responsive Search Ad with explicit constraints on headline and description counts. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from siblings like draft_campaign or draft_keywords. The verb and resource are clear, earning a strong score, though not perfect due to lack of sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions any alternative tools. It does offer process guidance (verification, blocklist), but that is more about how to use, not selection criteria. This is adequate but not explicit.

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