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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it does not render, does not charge, and returns a 'locked' script. This helps the agent understand side effects and constraints without contradicting 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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and input, then covers the output contract and side-effect boundaries. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information.

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 simple, read-only research tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers input, output, and side effects adequately. It does not mention exact script format details, but the output schema likely covers those; overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, and each parameter already includes the 'Required unless the other is set' relationship. The description merely restates 'from a product URL or brief' without adding new meaning about parameter format, constraints, or edge cases. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Research'), names the resource ('Ad Studio'), lists the accepted input ('product URL or brief'), and enumerates the exact output ('Problem, Curiosity, Trust, and Niche angles with a locked 5-beat script'). This clearly differentiates it from generation or quoting sibling tools.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent has a product URL or brief and needs research angles/script. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like generate_ad_studio or quote_ad_studio, and it does not give any 'use this, not that' guidance. It relies mostly on the tool name and general phrasing.

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