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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add one key clarification: 'Exposure is a lifetime reference for newly launched creatives, not a daily increment,' which prevents misinterpretation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, latency, or any side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds a critical nuance about exposure and the default/max range. Every sentence earns its place. It is concise and well-structured.

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-style tool with no output schema, the description provides the core information: what it returns, the exposure semantics, and date constraints. However, it does not specify the return structure or how metrics ('materials', 'ads', 'all') map to the output. Given the moderate complexity and no output schema, it is sufficient but could be more explicit about the resulting data shape.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Default 90 days; maximum 180 days,' which supplements the schema's date_from constraint, and clarifies exposure semantics. It does not add much beyond that, but it does compensate slightly for the schema's plain descriptions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get daily newly launched creatives, reused creatives, ad plans and exposure references' and ties it to a purpose ('analyze delivery growth and creative refresh cadence'). It is specific enough to distinguish from broad siblings like get_game_trend, though it does not explicitly name a differentiator from similar trend 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 gives default and maximum date-range constraints but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions that would select this tool over others (e.g., get_game_delivery_summary or get_game_trend), nor any exclusions. The purpose is implied but not contrasted with sibling tools.

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