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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description confirms it's a 'get' operation, adding no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No rate limits, auth, or side effects are mentioned, but the bar is lowered given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately states the purpose and briefly lists key output components, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 output schema exists, the simple parameter set, and annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing. The description, together with structured fields, fully equips an agent to call this tool 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 100%, so both parameters (tenant_id, shopper_id) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 the resource 'shopper's ad preferences', and specifies exactly what is returned (sponsored results allowance, brand/ingredient preferences). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which handle preference retrieval.

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?

Though no alternative tool is mentioned, the purpose is unambiguous: this is the sole tool for fetching shopper ad preferences. There is no need for explicit exclusions because no sibling performs a similar function. The context is clear, but it lacks explicit 'when to use' phrasing.

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