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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: consumption of a monthly generation allowance, async job semantics requiring polling, and a download step. No contradiction with 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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the deliverable definition, the quota side effect, the retrieval workflow, and the key parameter deviation. Front-loaded with the purpose and zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the essential usage loop (generation, polling, download) and the quota impact. A minor gap: it never references the quote step that the schema hints at ('Use the same value as the quote'), though the schema itself carries that information.

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; the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds marginal value by re-explaining uniquePlates behavior ('reuse one image across the pack') but contributes no new semantics for slideCount, aspectRatio, or ctaUrl beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource ('Generate an Ad Lab tip pack') and defines the deliverable's structure (hook, numbered tips, soft CTA), which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_ad or generate_ad_proof_pack. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the content breakdown makes the tool's identity clear.

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?

Provides workflow context — 'Poll get_ad_generation; download slides and zip from the job' and 'Uses this month's generation allowance' — which tells an agent what to do after invoking. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings (generate_ad_studio, generate_ad_proof_pack) or when not to use it.

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