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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful semantics — the story/look distinction and that filters compose with similarity — but says nothing about what comes back, whether the source commercial is excluded, or how results are ranked/capped (limit max 20). It also doesn't warn that this is a search over an open corpus that may return few or no matches.

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?

Two sentences, densely packed, with the core operation front-loaded and the story/look gloss and filter hint following. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description should say at least roughly what a result set looks like (commercial records? ranked list?) and whether the seed commercial is included. It also omits the default for 'limit'. The available budget is small and mostly well spent, but a similarity tool that returns none of this leaves a real gap.

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 70%, so many parameters are already documented. The description still adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains what 'story' and 'look' actually compute over (tropes and tone vs. light, framing, palette), which the bare enum values 'story'/'look' do not convey, and it signals that the remaining filter parameters mirror search_commercials' filter set.

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 specific operation (find commercials similar to a given one) and defines the two axes precisely: STORY (idea, tropes, tone) versus LOOK (light, framing, palette). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It falls short of 5 because it never differentiates itself from the near-duplicate sibling find_similar, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to pick.

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?

It implies usage through 'Accepts the same filters as search_commercials to narrow (e.g. only award winners, only another brand)', which shows a realistic narrowing scenario. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over find_similar or similar_commercial_shots, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable but not prescribed.

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