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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: that the answer is guidance only because policies change without notice and should be confirmed with the team.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and follows with parameter guidance and the guidance caveat. The long category enumeration is illustrative but slightly bloats an otherwise tight description.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and the authoritative-vs-guidance caveat. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned limits, but that is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: the behavior of omitting 'channel' (checks every channel) and the state-level scope of 'state', plus concrete category examples. It adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 decision it answers (whether a restricted category can run on a channel) plus the constraints it returns (age gates, targeting, pre-approval). The enumerated categories make the scope unambiguous and distinguish it from generic sibling tools like list_categories or review_content.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to drive it: pass a channel slug from list_channels to check one, omit it to see every channel, and add a two-letter state for state-level rules. It also names list_channels as the source of slugs, though it doesn't state when not to use this tool.

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