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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details that the tool uses vector-neighbor search, excludes low-similarity and near-duplicates, does not expose raw similarity scores, and describes internal resolution for Chinese queries. It also explains the proxy seed limitation.

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, information-dense paragraph. It front-loads the core function and includes necessary details. While it could be broken into sections for readability, every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy. Still concise for the amount 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return behavior (ordered by similarity, exclusions, no raw scores), all parameters, and multiple use cases (with/without creative_id, English/Chinese). It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond the schema: it clarifies the relationship between query and creative_id, explains that query is used to select a seed, and specifies the maximum limit. It also provides domain-specific guidance (e.g., English terms only). This adds value, warranting a 4.

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 finds visually similar creatives using the stored vector of an existing creative. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('similar creatives'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_creatives by specifying vector-based similarity and visual similarity.

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 provides explicit guidance: when to supply creative_id vs query, how to handle English vs Chinese concepts, and what to do with results (e.g., disclose proxy seeds). It implies when not to use (e.g., if exact match needed, use search_creatives) and differentiates from siblings.

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